New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house to order?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The house will come to order.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Good

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: afternoon, colleagues and guests. Wonderful to see everyone today. The elder Kelly Diane Galloway will offer a prayer for us this afternoon.

[Elder Kelly Diane Galloway]: All heads bowed. Gracious and sovereign God, we invite you into this session, into every conversation and every decision and every moment that will unfold within these walls today. We pause with intention recognizing that we are stewards of something far greater than ourselves, And that leadership is not simply a passion, but it is a responsibility. So today, we ask for wisdom. Clear, unwavering wisdom for every elected official, every staff member, every advisor, and every hand that helps to shape the decisions that are going to be made in this place. May decisions not be driven by pressure or politics or personal gain, but by the truth, integrity, and courage to do what is right. Grant us discernment in complex moments. Grant clarity when the path forward is unclear. We lift up the unseen labor in this building, the staff who work long hours, the aides who carry heavy responsibilities, the voices behind the scenes who help to move this work forward, Strengthen them, sustain them, remind them that their work matters. We also remember the people beyond these walls, the families, the children, the communities represented here today. May every policy, every vote, and every conversation be shaped with them in mind. Let justice not be an abstract idea, but a lived reality. Let compassion guide our actions. Let accountability be embraced and not avoided. May this chamber be marked with wisdom, integrity, and a genuine desire to serve. And may each person leave here better than they came, more thoughtful, more grounded, and more committed to people entrusted in their care. And we offer this prayer with gratitude and expectations. Let everybody say amen.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Amen. Amen.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Visitors are invited to join members in the pledge of allegiance. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, March 17. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Tuesday, March 17, and that the same standard moved.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Without objections, so ordered.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you. Thank you so much. To, my colleagues that are in the chamber as well as our many guests that we have here with us today. I do have a quote I would like to share with you as soon as I put my fingers on it. Maybe I don't have a quote that I would like to share with you today. And so my apologies. I found her. Her name is Margaret Atwood. Margaret is a prolific Canadian writer, a poet, and a literary critic as well as an inventor. Her words for us today, you can't help what you feel, but you can help how you behave. Again, these words from Margaret Atwood, Canadian, one of our neighbors. Madam speaker, our colleagues have on their desk a main calendar as well as a debate list. Before we do any housekeeping or introductions, we're gonna be calling for the following committees to meet off the floor. Tourism and insurance. We're gonna begin our floor work today by taking up calendar resolutions on page three, then we're gonna take up the following bills from the debate list. In this specific order, madam speaker, calendar number one zero one by mister Carroll, calendar one one twenty nine by miss Kellis, calendar one thirty two by miss Rozic, and calendar 37 by miss Barrett. There may be a need to announce further floor activity, Madam Speaker, if that is the case, we will advise at that moment. However, members should be aware that there is going to be a joint budget subcommittee that will continue meeting today with cycles c at 04:00 and d at 04:30. Cycle e will actually meet at 05:00. These that's a general outline of where we're going so far today, madam speaker. If you could begin by calling the tourism committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Tourism committee members, please meet chair Kim in the Speaker's Conference Room. Tourism committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. We don't have any housekeeping this afternoon. We will start introductions with miss Pipo Stokes for the purpose of an introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: You, madam speaker. It's my pleasure to rise to introduce one of the many icons and stars that come from the great city of Buffalo. This young lady, Kelly Diane Galloway, elder Kelly Diane Galloway, delivered an amazing prayer for us today, is a renowned activist, humanitarian, and founder of project Mona's House, a national leader in the fight against human trafficking. Under her leadership, Mona's House has become the only restorative shelter in New York in United States where over ninety two percent of its first year graduates achieve homeownership and financial independence. The organization is a holistic approach they take from prevention to outreach to restoration to operating the Freedom Center and drop in resources. This amazing work that she does not just in The United States, she does it across the globe. And she travels to Africa, Guatemala, and you name it, where there are people to be saved, this elder is willing to go. So if you would please offer the cordialities of our house and welcome her to our chambers.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On behalf of Ms. People Stokes, the speaker, and all members, welcome Elder Galloway to the People's House. We extend you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for all of the work, the wonderful work that you're doing in our community. Keep up the great work. Thank you for joining us today. Miss Jackson, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Chantel Jackson, Member of Assembly (79th District), Chair, Legislative Women’s Caucus]: Okay. Thank you madam speaker. Okay. Most of you are aware of the chair of the baby caucus, TJ. However, my first born is here today. She doesn't get to come up to Albany as much because she is booked and busy these days. Please let me introduce my daughter Skye Jackson Williams. She graduated from LaGuardia majoring in dance and then FIT majoring in fashion business management. I started putting Sky in dance when she was about four years old and she realized at eight years old she wanted to do this as an actual career. I remember taking her to dance competitions across the nation, paying for all these lessons at Brick House and BDC and my guy was it expensive. But it was well worth it because today she is on in a Broadway show called MJ the musical As a dancer, she is also on the national tour. She has seen parts of this country I have never heard of. This is my best friend, my travel buddy. I say she and I raised each other because I had her when she was when I was 18. So, the bible says to train up a child in a way they should go and when they are older, may they not depart from it. And madam speaker, I ask that you grant my good good child here all the cordialities of the floor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Of course. On behalf of miss Jackson, the speaker and all members, welcome Skye to the people's house, our assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Wishing you the best continued success for all of your artistic endeavors. Your mom is awesome. We're so proud to be able to have her here in the house. Thank you so very much for sharing her with us, and thank you for joining us here today. Thank you. Ms. Peoples Stokes for the purpose of an introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. To add to the introduction process that we're gonna go through today, I would like to introduce and welcome the Empower Group. It's a group of 11 young ladies that is a stem that comes out of these group of young ladies actually work through the Mona's house project and it's called Empower Group. It's empowering young ladies to grow up and one day do the same kind of work and add the same sort of value that Kelly Galloway does. Also, madam speaker, I would like to mention that her parents are here. And and anytime you can raise a child like this, you know these must be great parents. So mister and missus Galloway are here as well. If they could stand, if you would welcome these wonderful people. We selected as a district, Galloway, to be our distinguished woman this year, and she brought a whole troop of people with her, and I'm so grateful that she did. So if you could please welcome them to our house.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On behalf of miss People Stokes, the speaker, and all members, welcome to our young women here today from the Empower Group and also the Galloway family. We are happy to have you here today in the people's house and extending to all of you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Continued best wishes and good luck to all of you young women. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Miss Jackson, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Chantel Jackson, Member of Assembly (79th District), Chair, Legislative Women’s Caucus]: It's like a basketball game going back and forth. Alright. Well, madam speaker, thank you for allowing me to do this introduction. Today, we are honoring women of distinction and what the legislative woman's caucus was able to host a meet and greet this morning with the governor and our honorees are here with us in the chambers. We're going to also have a brunch for them a little bit later, so we have to get out here soon. But, it was really important that we bring women to the capital who we know are doing amazing work within our district, all of them from all walks of life and it does not matter if you are a democrat or republican, an assembly member or a senator, we wanna honor all women today and I just ask madam speaker that you give give them all the cordiality of the floor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On behalf of miss Jackson, the speaker and all members, we welcome today all of the honorees that are here today celebrating for our legislative women's caucus, women's history month. You are successful, empowered, brilliant women who have traveled here today and we want to raise you up. And thank you so very much for being here today. I'd like to give a special shout out to my honoree, Ms. Beverly Griffin who is a wonderful, wonderful woman. We are extending the privileges of the floor to you, hoping you enjoy the proceedings today, and everything that we are celebrating with you here today. Thank you all so very much for joining us today. Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Good afternoon to colleagues. I'm so I'm very lucky because as a person who represents the Capital District, I do get visitors. And today we are joined by 24 members of the Half Moon Seniors, including their fearless leader, Senior Citizen Association President Nancy Morris. These seniors are busy. They are doing all kinds of trips. They last year, maybe about six months ago, I was speaking with Nancy about maybe bringing a group down to the capital because many of them have not been able to be in the capital and they're going to be taking a capital tour in a little bit of time. So I'm very glad to have them join with me today. They are a lively bunch. They do a lot of fun events in Half Moon, but they also volunteer their time back to the community as well through support groups, providing meals, and so much more. So madam speaker, if you could please welcome some of my favorite people to the chamber here today.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On behalf of miss Walsh, the speaker, and all members, welcome residents from Half Moon here today, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Happy to see you here today, sharing your love and wisdom and guidance with all you, come encounter with today. We hope you enjoy our proceedings. It's just wonderful to see all of you here today. I I passed you in the hallway and you got a large group, so you come en masse. We we love to see that. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Mister Micklein, for the purpose of an introduction.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today to introduce the Nortons. We have Gerard, Kate and the Star which is the reason why they are here today, Madeline. The Nortons are here advocating for the Rare Disease Council for Rare Disease Week. Madeline was diagnosed with a rare disease called PKAN and the Nortons have started Madeline's mission which is a mission in order to find a cure for Madeline. Please extend the cordialities of the floor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On behalf of Mr. Mikkelen, the speaker and all members, we welcome the Norton family to the speaker's house and extend you the privileges of the floor. Welcome baby Madeline. We're happy to see you here today. Best wishes for all of your long standing advocacy and thank you so very much for joining us today. Thank you. Mister Syash, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Nader J. Sayegh, Member of Assembly (90th District)]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. Today, we have on the agenda a resolution honoring Pakistani American Heritage Day. And I rise to recognize and warmly welcome a distinguished delegation on the Pakistani and governmental community and the diplomatic corps who have joined us here in the assembly chamber. It is with great honor to acknowledge his excellency, Lizran Syed Sheikh, ambassador of the Islamic Republic Of Pakistan to The United States, whose leadership continues to strengthen, diplomatic ties, foster collaboration between our nations. Also pleased to recognize mister Amir Ahmed Otazai, General Counsel of Pakistan in New York, for his continued service to the Pakistani diaspora in The United States, and especially the Northeast. And also, mister Ali Rashid, president of the American Pakistan Advocacy Group, whose advocacy and leadership have played a viral and major role in uplifting and representing his community here in the New York Metro Area and throughout the state. Again, honored to represent and have with us esteemed members, Amin Ghani, Navid Duvad, Adeel Sujda, Parvis Riaz, Malik Hashem, Usman Shafiq, Aniza Riaz, Tamina Khan, Sanaa Adeel Farhan Rashid, Asgar Jeral, Faisal Khan, Usman Shah, Babar Ali, and Rita A Clark. These are individuals and community that only represent the best interests of what Pakistani Americans bring to our country, and that is pride in family, pride in culture, pride in heritage, and the ability to work hard.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. On behalf of Mr. Syaj, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our distinguished guests here today. The ambassador, Syed Sheikh, the honorable Amir Ahmed Atozi, Mr. Ali Rashid and all of the members from the Pakistani American community. We welcome you and thank you for celebrating with our resolution today, honoring Pakistan American Heritage Day. We extend to you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Mister Alvarez, for the purpose of an introduction.

[George Alvarez, Member of Assembly (78th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Allow me to introduce these distinguished guests. Today is my great honor to welcome a remarkable group of student and leaders from Lehman College. Lehman is located in the heart of the Grums, has a long been pillar of opportunity, academic excellence, and upward mobility for thousands of New Yorkers. It is an institution that reflects the resiliency, diversity, and brilliance of our Brums, preparing the next generation of educators, scientists, public servants, and community leaders. I would also like to take a moment to give a special recognition to the college outstanding president Fernando Delgado. To the students visiting us today, you represent the future of our city and our state. We are proud to have you here in Albany, and we hope that your visit offered meaningful into the legislative process and inspires many of you to pursue leadership and public service. Madam speaker, please join me in giving a warm welcome to the Lehman College student at extended courtesy of the floor. Thanks.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. On behalf of mister Alvarez, the speaker, and all members, welcome our future leaders from Lehman College. We are happy to see you here today and welcome you and extend the privileges of the floor to you. We have best wishes for continued academic success to you. Thank you all for traveling here today and thank you for joining us. Miss Tapia for the purpose of an introduction.

[Yudelka Tapia, Member of Assembly (86th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I'm proud to to welcome a group of outstanding students and educators from my district. We are joined by students from MS four forty seven, Creston Academy, along with their partners Good Cheaper Services. I want to recognize assistant director Karen Aquino Ure and group leader Melanie Martinez for the work they do every day to support young people and help them grow into leaders. We are also joined by five incredible students, Alanis Abreu, put your hands, Farana Banchole, Masija Gail, Jamil Guzman. They represent the bright future of our Bronx community. And it is wonderful to have them here learning about how government works. They are here today advocating for additional funding for after school programs. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome and madam speaker, please show them the cordiality of the floor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On behalf of Ms. Taffia, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our young leaders from MS four forty seven and Good Shepherd Services here to the Assembly Chamber extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much all for joining us today. Thank you. Mister Blumenkrantz, the purpose of an introduction.

[Jake Blumencranz, Member of Assembly (15th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am very excited and pleased to rise today, joined by my partner in government, Steve Rhodes, to introduce to the People's House the students, faculties, and families of Merkez Academy in Plainview, New York. Today, we have 15 bright young students. Their esteemed leader, rabbi Kalman Fogle, and four dedicated chapters chaperones who guide them and inspire us each and every day. Marquez Academy is more than just a school. It is a vibrant educational community for families in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. From the earliest learners through sixth grade, the academy is committed to excellence in both Judaic and secular studies. Fostering not only academic achievement but strong character, identity, and a deep sense of purpose. What makes Marquez so special is its ability to nurture individual growth with warm, inclusive and values driven environment. Preparing those students not just to succeed in the classroom but in our communities and in our world. To these students, you are our future leaders, thinkers, and builders of a great state and nation. We are honored to have you here with us today in your visit to Albany and I hope it inspires you to stay engaged in the civic process and in our community. Madam Speaker, I ask that you extend Merkez Academy the cordialities of the floor. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Yes. On behalf of Mr. Blumenkrantz, the speaker, and all members, welcome our young leaders from Merkez Academy. It's a privilege to see you here today. And we are extending those privileges to the floor here for you today. And we hope you enjoy the proceedings. We extend the best wishes for your continued academic success, and it was wonderful to hear all of the good citizenry work that you're already working on. Thank you so very much for being an active participant in the community. Thank you for joining us today. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, could you please call the insurance committee into the Speaker's Conference Room, please?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Insurance committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Insurance committee members, please meet chair Wefren quietly moving to the Speakers' Conference Room. Resolutions. Page three. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero six one, miss Vefer Omato. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/18/2026 as transit employee appreciation day in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Miss Feffer Motto on the resolution.

[Unidentified Member (Transit Employee Appreciation Day sponsor)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Good morning oops sorry. Good afternoon everyone. Guess what today is? No it's not St. Patrick's Day and no it's not my birthday, that's tomorrow. Today is March 18 and it's Transit Appreciation Day. We all know transit employees from bus drivers to rail or subway conductors but also those involved in operations like supervisors, mechanics, operators, cleaners, mechanic helpers, bus attendants and dispatchers and so many other incredible roles that help New Yorkers get from point A to point B. Throughout New York State, there are over 200,000 individuals who are considered transit employees. Transit employees serve as frontline workers who ensure the safety of travelers and keep public transit running through natural disasters, global health pandemics and other emergency situations. They always show up. So today, let's thank our transit employees for all they do because they truly help keep New York moving. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero six two, mister Sajj, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim '8 03/18/2026 as Pakistan American Heritage Day in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Saj, on the resolution.

[Nader J. Sayegh, Member of Assembly (90th District)]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. I rise today to recognize and celebrate the Pakistani American community and to support the resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/18/2026 as Pakistan American Heritage Day in New York State. Pakistani Americans are an integral part of our state's cultural and economic fabric. From education and healthcare to business technology, their contributions continue to strengthen our communities and drive innovation across New York. With nearly 250,000 Pakistani Americans in New York City alone, the community brings a rich heritage, strong values, and a deep commitment to service and business engagement. Today, we recognize the vital role of Pakistani American businesses and it is a pleasure to be joined today by the ambassador of Pakistan, Bizwan Saeed Sheikh, counsel general Amrah Ahmed Dotazi, and mister Ali Rashid of the American Pakistani Advocacy Group. Please give them, all our respect as they have contributed tremendously to the New York economy.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero six three, miss Jackson legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 2026 as women's history month in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Miss Jackson, on the resolution.

[Chantel Jackson, Member of Assembly (79th District), Chair, Legislative Women’s Caucus]: Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to speak on this resolution. Happy women's history month. March, we recognize the women whose leadership, resilience and dedication have made a lasting impact on our state. Women's History Month actually started as a week in California in 1978 but after much lobbying and the federal government has recognized it in 1980. But in 1987, Congress passed the law recognizing March as Women's History Month. While we make up 50% of the population, women I'm talking about, it's not always reflective in who holds the power. Women make up 34% of the New York State legislators. And women like Shirley Chisholm and Susan B Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt have paved the way for us getting this far. These are women who if they didn't have a seat at the table, they brought a folding chair. This year's theme is leading the change, women shaping a sustainable future. And with that said, I would like to acknowledge a former assembly member, Kathy Nolan, who was a chair the chair of the legislative woman's caucus from 1991 to 1993. She dedicated her life to public service. She and every other woman that served in this body ensure that we have equity and inclusion. And when women lead, we focus not just on ourselves but on our families and our communities. And we can't do this without our allies like our assembly member speaker, Carl Hasty, who promotes women to leadership positions and who listen to our needs and to myself, I would have to say I would not be able to be in this position for as long as I have if it wasn't for the speaker and his vision for us as a body. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh on the resolution.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I just really wanted to say that I think that we often say that kids need to see it to be it or women need to see it to be it, but a lot of the women that we're honoring today with this resolution are women who looked around and didn't see anybody, anybody at all in the position that they were interested in or in the career that they were interested in and they did it anyway. And I think that that's really important. I think that you know the legislative women's caucus has been here since 1983 and I remember a few years ago as a newer member listening to some women like Kathy Nolan, like Deborah Glick talking about how you know there wasn't even a women's bathroom here that women legislators could go use. And just you know you don't even think about that kind of stuff. But there is always room for additional change and additional improvements. And I just want to say that I'm glad to be part of this trio that we have here with our speaker pro tem, with our majority leader and myself as three women in this room, in this chamber that I think are representing women well. And I want to thank you all for your collegiality. And I just want to say, you know, happy Women's History Month. It's important. It's important that we market and like I said, there's always room for improvement. There's always a place to show some gains. So thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Ms. Giglio on the resolution.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. It's an honor to stand before you today as we recognize and celebrate Women's History Month. I am so thankful for all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the trips that we have done together and the camaraderie that we have had for each other, the support we have had for each other and the friendships that have grown over the years. This month is more than a celebration, it is a reminder, a reminder of the courage it took for women to demand a voice, to break barriers and to reshape history. From the suffragists who fought tirelessly for the right to vote, to the pioneers in science, education, business and public service, women have continually moved our society forward often against great odds. We think of leaders like Susan B. Anthony who stood firm in the fight for equality and Rosa Parks whose quiet strength sparked a movement that changed a nation. We remember innovators like Marie Curie who transformed science and trailblazers like Amelia Earhart who redefined what was possible. But Women's History Month is not only about those whose names are written in textbooks, it is also about the women in our own lives. The mothers, daughters, teachers, mentors and friends who inspire us every day. It is about the women who lead quietly, who lift others up, who persevere through challenges and who make lasting impacts in ways both seen and unseen. Today, we also recognize that work is not finished. While progress has been made, there are still barriers to break and opportunities to expand. Women continue to advocate for equal pay, representation, access to education and the ability to lead in every field. And it is up to all of us, not just women, but everyone to support that progress. Let this month be a call to action. A call to listen, to learn and to lead. A call to empower the next generation of girls to dream without limits and to know their voices matter. Because when women succeed, communities thrive. When women lead, societies grow stronger. And when we honor the past, we help build a more equitable future. So today, let us celebrate the achievements of women past and present and recommit ourselves to ensuring that the opportunities of tomorrow are open to all. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes on the resolution.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. What an honor to rise in celebration of this amazing month that we're in called Women's History Month. But I also wanna rise to congratulate and thank the chair of the Women's Caucus, Chantel Jackson, for putting together an amazing breakfast this morning with, just so happens to be, the first woman to ever be governor in this this state of New York in its two hundred almost fifty year existence. It was an amazing time that all of our, guests that we invited got a chance to not just, hear from the governor, but to take pictures with her and people were super impressed with that. I understand that they have now gone on to lunch and they have some other things planned for today. So one of the best things, about this caucus of legislative women is that it's bicameral and it's bipartisan. And so it keeps us in contact with each other no matter what experiences we bring to the table. We have that opportunity to share them through this organization. So I honor the way our legislative women's caucus is honoring women's history month in 2026. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero six four, Ms. Walsh, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 2026 as Women in Trades Month in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Ms. Walsh, on the resolution.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So as many of you might know, in the trades currently, only 9% is comprised of women in the trades. We know that our gender population is about equal, so we know that 9% is really pretty woefully low. I'm very honored to carry this resolution again this year to bring attention to that fact and also to really highlight some important work that's being done statewide but particularly in my neck of the woods in the 112th Assembly District and next door in the 113th. I'm glad to see local companies in my district and across the area and different groups promoting these initiatives as well as through the Northeast Construction Trades Workforce Coalition and girls in the trades programs such as the summer camp that I and Assemblywoman Warner had the pleasure of visiting over the past few years where they bring in younger girls who are learning how to do everything from they build the coolest things. They build everything from work oh gosh, toolboxes to these really cool like Viking chairs to all these different things. And it's all to get them used to the idea that they can handle power equipment, that they can read a blueprint and put something together and they're assisted by other tradespeople in the area, men and women, who are encouraging them to consider that whether it's carpentry or masonry or whatever they're interested in, that there is really good work to be found in the trades for them. So some of the groups that are represented here today include my good friend Doug Ford and Pam Stott, a good friend of the Northeast Construction Trades Workforce Coalition. They're here along with a number of other women who are currently in the trades including Louise Eddy who is here from Saratoga Quality Hardware and Stephanie Wiley, my good friend from Hoosick Valley Contractors. It's wonderful to have them here today and also to shine a light on this important need, but also this great work that's being done in our area. This is really something that we can make additional gains in and we need to continue to work towards. So I'm very pleased to welcome them here today and also to speak a little bit on this resolution. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Page 21, calendar number 101. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number 3058C, calendar one zero one, mister R. Carroll, an act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Carroll.

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: This bill would require manufacturers to place a repair score on packaging as well as online and with the New York state the secretary of the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Mechelen.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: I do yield.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Sponsor yield.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Thank you so very much. Just a few questions. First of all, why are we doing this here today?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: Because we believe, I believe, that consumers should know the repairability of the products that they purchase in New York State.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Alright. And what department would be in charge of actually doing the score?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: So the New York Department of State would create standards and then the manufacturer would actually score their product according to those standards.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: And who would regulate that? So the manufacturers doing it. Right? But how do we know that manufacturers actually putting down what the actual score is?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: The attorney general would have a right to action if they were not providing accurate information on their products.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But how would we find that out? So what department would

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: Well, the Department of State would create regulations for repairability looking at items like, is it easy to disassemble a product? Are there replacement parts for a product? How easy is that to do and how easy is it for technicians to do? Those standards would then create a score that a manufacturer would have to abide by. If that manufacturer was not doing that, the attorney general would be able to bring a claim against that manufacturer, and I believe a violation would be for every single violation, they could be charged $500. So presuming, if you sell an iPhone and you sell millions of them in the state of New York and you were not truthfully labeling, its repairability, you could be charged $500 per iPhone.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: And how cumbersome do you believe that would be for the state to enforce?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: I don't believe it would be cumbersome at all. The European Union has a very specific system. It has over 550,000,000 citizens.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Now this would be New York state specific. Correct? It would. So obviously, we don't sell products only in New York state. They sell products throughout the country, all 50 states. So how is it that you know, why is it that we should do it between one state? Shouldn't this be a nationwide thing? Because when

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: Well, mister Meiklein, we are, of course, in the New York state legislature. And though we may want to aspire to higher heights, we can, of course, only regulate businesses that do business here in New York state if it ends up affecting other states and providing transparency and consumer protection for other states, so be it.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But I think what I'm trying to get at is that now we have companies and they have to regulate it for just New York state. So how do you think that would affect the marketplace in New York state? Maybe some companies just will decide, I don't wanna sell my product in New York state because of this.

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: I I believe that a repairability score is not cumbersome nor would it add any additional cost to a manufacturer. And considering we have a market of over 20,000,000 people, I think they would still like to sell their wares in the state of New York.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: And couldn't so now there has to be a label on the product. Correct? Yes. And how visible is that label?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: How visible is the label? I don't

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: I don't

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: have that directly in front of me, but presumably it would have to be perceptible to the naked eye.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Alright. And don't we believe that this could be compounded for with with other states so the the information being passed to the consumer could be quite confusing here?

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: I don't know why it would be confusing. Scoring, again, in the European Union and in the bill, it says we could use alphanumerical scoring. We could use alphabetical scoring. I think it's pretty simple. If you go to New York City and you see that they score the cleanliness of restaurants a to d, I think everybody knows what that is. I think we see scoring all the time, one to 10. I believe the residents of the state of New York are very intelligent, including your constituents, and I believe they will be able to figure out the scoring system. What

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: about prices now? How do you how do you believe this is going to affect prices? Because we could they could increase the prices of products here in the city of New York because of this.

[Robert C. Carroll, Member of Assembly (44th District)]: I don't believe they would.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Thank you so very much. On the bell?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bell.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: We just believe that this is extremely cumbersome for the state, especially since it is not unified throughout the country and therefore will be a negative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: This action will take effect on the three hundred and sixty fifth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will generally speaking be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are members that wish to vote in the affirmative, they may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Ms. People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is going to be in favor of this consumer friendly piece of legislation. However, there may be a few that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, 98. Noes, 41.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The bill is passed. Page 24, calendar number one twenty nine. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number four seven one six d, calendar one twenty nine, miss Cullis. An act to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: An explanation has been requested, miss Kellis.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Yes. This bill, very simply, would require after twenty January first, two thousand and thirty that washing machines sold in New York State would either have in the washing machine a filter system that would filter out microplastics or would have an inline filter that could go in the waterline that would also filter out microplastics.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Mekalene?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Sponsor yields.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Thank you so very much. So let's just go over this bill for a bit. So what is the purpose of the BILTY? What is the purpose here?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Okay, great question. Microplastics are now ubiquitous across the planet. They break down from anything that's plastic. But clothing is one of the greatest contributors of microplastics. And there have been studies recently that have shown there was a recent one that showed microplastics in our brains human brains but it has been found in almost all tissues in our body. That's obviously concerning because there have been a significant amount of studies that have shown the relationship between microfibers and inflammation. And of course we know inflammation is one of the foundational risks for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, for one. We've also found that it's very harmful in environments. We've also had data that has shown that it reduces our immune response. I could go on, I have six pages of its impacts both on our health and the environment. But it might be And I will say washing machines in particular contribute, for example I'll just give you one example not only is it in fresh water, but it has been found to be the equivalent of about 30% of all the plastic in the ocean is microfibers understood to come significantly from washing machines.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay. So how is it that the microfibers get there? So we're focusing on washing machines here, but where do the microfibers come from? Is it coming from the clothes? Is it coming from them? Well, it's in washing machine,

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: we wash our clothes.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But how does it get to that washing machine?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Excuse me?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: How does it get in the washing machine?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, we put our clothes in the washing machine.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay. So I would say that the micro it's already in our clothes. Would that be correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: The microfibers come from our clothes because a significant amount of our clothes are plastic. Polyester, for example, which is in a significant amount of our clothes is I'll answer your question is plastic. And when you wash clothes, it breaks down the fibers. Like anybody knows, for example, you wash a pair of jeans a whole bunch of times. Most of them are stretchy now. That's plastic. We all like them better after we've washed them a whole bunch of times because they're softer. The reason they're softer is because we're breaking down some of the fibers. Breaking down those fibers leads to those fibers then being in the water. That water is then flushed out because we certainly aren't using the same water every time. That water goes through the water line and it includes all of these microplastics that when they go through the system, if they go to our wastewater treatment, they can't filter out the microplastics because they go through the filter system, they end up in our freshwater. Freshwater ultimately eventually ends up mixing with saltwater and ends up in our ocean. So you get it throughout the entire system as well as soil and now they're finding significant amounts of it in our food supply because it also ends up on our farmland.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But why are we regulating the washing machines and not regulating the textile industry then? So actually don't if take you from our clothes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: If you Mr. Micklend and Ms. Kellys, please, we need someone to pause, ask the question, then answer. Don't speak So, over each

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: answering your question specifically, why we the washing machine and not the clothes? Well, I actually have several bills on the clothes as well. But this is a very effective technology that already exists and it is very effective. Many of the filters are up to over 95% of removing the microplastics. I think asking for all clothing to no longer be produced with anything but natural fibers like silk and wool and cotton, while that would be lovely for the environment, I think that that would be a larger conversation where this is much more realistic as something that we can do right now because the technology exists and because it is so harmful to humans, to animals, and to the environment, if we have a technology and a solution right now, as a government it's our responsibility particularly given its negative impacts to implement that technology right now.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: So these microfibers, now they would be in a there's a filter within the washing machine. So how would the normal person clean that filter now? And how would now those microfibers, how would that affect the normal person cleaning the washing machine on out?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, so just do you have a dryer?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Yes.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Does it have a filter?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Yes.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Do you pull out that filter and remove the lint on that filter?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Yes. But now we're gonna have microfibers there, correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well now it'll be in your washing machine so you'll do the same thing now with your washing machine occasionally.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay. So I'm I'm gonna pull that on out to clean out the microfibers.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Mhmm.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: And when I so let's say I do this, how does that affect me? Because now I'm touching the the microfibers. Is there any health risk related to me when I'm cleaning that out?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: It'd be very similar to the experience of lint. It'll be in a ball like it'll be in a you know, you'll roll it up and you will throw it away. And if you want to wash your hands to remove the plastic. Our skin isn't organ. It is actually intended to prevent the absorption of materials. The absorption of microplastics through our skin I think would be quite negligible.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: And how much more would this washing machine cost me now to have a filter for microplastics in it?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So I've researched the costs and it varies. The cheapest one that I found was about $40.44 dollars.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: For a whole well, no. No. That so that would be so you're saying it would be a $44 increase in the cost of a washing machine because

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: For the filter? $44.44

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: dollars for the filter, but how much would it cost for a washing machine now? So you have two options. I No.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: You don't

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I'm sorry. Please go ahead.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: So if I go to Lowe's or Home Depot and I'm buying a washing machine when this filter is put in, how much more money am I going to be paying for that washing machine now that it has that filter in it?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So it depends on the company. It varies tremendously. There are two options in this bill. You can either buy a machine that already has a filter in it, it is embedded in the system itself, or they can sell the washing machine with the filter that would go in the line. That is up to the manufacturer. If you bought it in the second version, it would be an additional, in this case $44.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay, but with

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: that And that would be required.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: If I buy it in the second version, right, I'm putting the filter in myself. Would that be correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: In the version that that exists, that has the filter in the system, there is a there there are two companies that produce them. One of them that I'm the most familiar with, these are in Europe, these are competitive prices because they use them more often.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay. So there are two but if I go to the store and I buy one without it and I have to put one in it, I have to install it myself or or pay somebody to install it?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: It's it's like your dryer, it would be something that you would put into the line and that you would pull out of the line, you would clean the filter, put it back in the line. So yes, if you buy the one that is the filter, that is the post production of the washing machine, so they are separate things. You have your washing machine, you have your filter, the filter goes in the line, you would put it in, you would remove it, depending on how often you wash, it could be once a year. Just did And not is a separate thing and yes, you would put the filter in and you would pull it out. The washing machines would be required to say in a very visible place that this is sold with a microfiber filter. The machine itself, if it doesn't have a filter that is embedded in the machine, it would have to be sold with that microfiber filter that would be a box on top of it that you would take home both of them but it would be required to be sold together. And you would put that filter in used and to would take take it

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: myself, what does that do to the warranty? Does that neglect the warranty if something goes wrong with it?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I'm sorry. Can you say that again?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: What would that do to the warranty on the washing machine? Water. Because if I'm putting if I'm installing something myself, how would that affect the warranty on on my washing machine?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Bill does not speak to that. That is that is between the manufacturer and like that is not relevant to this bill.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But you are requiring it. Right?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So what are we requiring it to sold with the microfiber filter.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: And you said that there are now two companies that produce it, so now every single company would have to produce a washing machine with a micro filter. Correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I'm sorry. Can you repeat There

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: are only two companies now that produce this in Europe. So now every single company here would have to develop a way to produce it.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: No. This is a company that also exists in The United States.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay. But they have to get the product. So all companies now in order to sell to New York would have to develop

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, there is a technology exists, the machine exists, this would obviously create the market. So if there's companies that already produce it, there's technologies that produce it, companies that are international and large like this, if there's a market and they can make a profit, they will sell here.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: How many states do this?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: There are seven, eight states that have introduced this bill.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But have passed and are selling mandate the

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Washington Department So introduce the bill. Would require that the machines that have the filter that this would take effect, this would start in 2030.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: But right

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: now So is not

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: happening anywhere in The United States Of America. Would that be correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I am saying there are seven states that have introduced this bill and it's moving through those states.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Okay. So the answer is yes. We we have not introduced states. Have not introduced it anyways. Now we have 01/01/2020

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: They haven't implemented it.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: They haven't implemented it, which was my question. So 01/01/2030 is when we are supposed to implement this. Correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: 01/01/2030.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Yes. What happens if a distributor has machines that don't have this after January 1? What do they do?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: The bill specifically says that this is that the menu it is the manufacturer that is required to sell to the retailer. The retailer is not affected by this as long as there is confirmation which is required by the manufacturer that it includes this, that they have sold it with this, then the retailer is exempt from culpability because they're simply selling the product from the manufacturer and the manufacturer is held accountable. So

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: the retailer can then can therefore if they have so let's say in 2029 they get a bunch of washing machines that don't have it. In 2030, if they have it, they can still sell it to me in the store.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Correct. So if you are a retailer, you still have supply. 01/01/2030 comes, you would sell you can still sell that supply that you have. But any new machines that are sold to you as the retailer by a manufacturer would have to have filters.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: How about let's say I have I bought a ton of machines and I'm a real and I sell these. 01/01/2031, can I still sell that machine? Yes. Have it.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: A different question. Yeah.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I mean, did did you manufacture them yourself?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: If if I bought it before 01/01/2030, I could still sell it in January in 01/01/2031.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: That I mean, that would be up to you and your business model. If you wanna buy a million machines and still have them on hand to sell them by 01/01/2030, then you would be able to sell them until they run out. The way the bill is written is that no machine can be sold by a manufacturer to a retailer after 01/01/2030 if it does not have if it doesn't comply with this law.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Thank you so very much. On the bell?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bell.

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: So you know I I think that this is just another way in which we are regulating something in the state of New York that really if it's implemented should be utilized throughout the country. I believe it's going to affect the interstate commerce especially since maybe New York, New Jersey or Connecticut, they don't, you could always buy a washing machine on over there. So it can affect the ability of retailers here to sell washing machines on that end. I'm going be in the negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mr. Minktullow.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The sponsor yield.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Thank you, Doctor. Kullis. Absolutely. Just a couple of quick questions.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Of course.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: My colleague asked most of those questions. How many states did you say are already implementing this?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I said there are seven states that have introduced this bill.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So right now in The United States of the 50 states, none of them are doing this as of today, correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Correct, which is also why we have not designed it to go into effect immediately so that it would allow the on ramp of the system in place. But I would note on that, that can you know, people would like to say that there's an argument because something hasn't been done yet. It is therefore not something we should do. But we are not fundamentally a different species or a different system so dramatically from other countries who have many of them have implemented it and the technology exists. So I don't find that a very strong argument.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Okay. If we were going to bring one into New York State at a box store, wherever, they are going to have to have this in if this bill passes, correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: The manufacturer would have to sell with this either in the machine itself, so it would be permanently in the machine, or it would be sold separate but with the machine to go in the line.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: How many manufacturers are there in The United States? Do you know?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I stopped counting, but I just looked earlier today at a list and I found 12.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: There are eight major ones in The United States, some outside of The United States. Any of these manufacturers, if they are going to ship a new washing machine to New York State, they are going to have to do this, correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: From the manufacturer, Yes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: So

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: my next question is, what will be the cost to the manufacturers to retool their production lines to do this?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, I suspect, I mean I'm not a manufacturer, so I think that it would be inappropriate for me to give a cost estimate of how much it's going to cost the manufacturer. But I think the question is, if they already exist, those that are already ahead of the game are the ones who are going to profit the most from this. And because there would be an extensive market given we're the twelfth largest economy in the world, We do do a lot of shopping and a lot of consumerism here. That it would attract a lot of manufacturers. But none of the other manufacturers would be required to start doing it if they didn't want to have access to the New York market. These companies would be the ones that would dominate. So, we would leave that natural market demands and impacts.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So, in a capitalistic type society where market drives everything, this would be a great way of doing that?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, in a way what you're saying is the companies, and we do this all the time in the market, the companies that have taken the initiative and moved into a technology before others, it is a risk that companies take all the time, and in this case, they would be rewarded for taking that risk of being the ones that have done it ahead of time.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So would it be safe to say that of the manufacturers that we're talking about in The US, you've not talked to any of them about what the cost would be for retooling then? Did you say that?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I have spoken to some manufacturers and there are the manufacturers that I spoke to are working with, currently working with scientists because there is a the technology is continually advancing and they're very interested in adopting the research from this particular professor that would improve the filtration system. So I've spoken to them and I'm naming names, but they were very excited about the advanced technology that they were seeing. So in my mind, that says to them that the profit would exceed the cost of the conversion. But that to me is more important than the exact dollar amount, is whether or not it would be advantageous and they see that there is a market.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Okay. And I applaud you for the safety aspect of this, the safety aspect to us as humans, but also the environment. My next question, you're talking about the filters and you made reference to drying your clothes, you take out the lint trap. You take out the lint trap and you throw the lint in the garbage. So, I'm assuming with the filters that you would do the same with the filters once they've filled up?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Generally.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So, is it safe to say then that these filters are now going to end up in our landfills?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: The filters themselves? Well, they last for a very long period of time, so would it be a massive increase in landfill mass? No, it would not. For all of those that go into the machine, those would not end up well. As long as you're not throwing your machine in the landfill, then it wouldn't end up in the landfill.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: No. I I'm not asking.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Are you asking for the material that you are pulling off?

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So my question is, I'm gonna pull the filter out of my washing machine, probably going to go into my garbage can. No?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So you're pulling the filter out, pulling the material out, throwing the material away, putting the filter back in.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Okay. So the stuff coming out of the filter is going to go into my garbage Mhmm. Going to my garbage can, into a garbage truck, transported to a landfill. So these microfibers are going to again end up in our landfills?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Preferably over the ocean and our water and our food and our brains. Yes.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So like up in our area, we have a lot of material garbage that comes from New York City that are now being deposited into our landfills. Do you ever foresee? Are you saying that in the future there may not be an issue because we're putting those microfibers in the ground?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I'm sorry.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Oh, take your time. You all set?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm set.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Thank you. So again, when these microfibers end up into our landfills, the water comes down, percolates through the landfill, we filter that again. Where is that microfiber going to end up? Is it going to end up in my well water? Is it going to end up in the canal system in New York State? Is it going to come to our Finger Lakes to Lake Ontario? Where is that microfiber going to go once it gets to the landfill?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, so if you're saying that we don't have lining systems on our landfills that would keep microplastics in, then we have a bigger problem on our hands because that means that all of the toxins in our landfills are coming out, to be honest. So the intention is that when you put it in the landfill, we've designed landfills, there are regulations and laws about landfills so that they have lining systems specifically to minimize the loss of material from the landfills once they're there. Is it ideal? The ideal is that we would have never produced polyester in the first place or other fibers in the first place, but they are in our clothes. It is a fact that we're trying to deal with. And so is it better to have these fibers in our bodies, our brains, our soil, our food, our water system, animals, the oceans or is it better for now that we collect it and it goes to landfills? And if we're talking about mass in landfills, this would not be a significant amount of mass in landfills. These are microfibers, microscopic in many cases. That's the point of being micro.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: I understand. My concern is we are going to put these microfibers into these landfills. And as I said, we have one of the largest freshwater areas in New York state being Lake Ontario, being our Finger Lakes and many other lakes throughout New York state. Would it not be a better solution to possibly find another use or another way of disposing those microfibers instead of putting them in the landfills because when you and I are not here anymore we do not know what is going to come out of those landfills Will the liner rip or the liner break? Have seen them first hand I have been down on the liner I have concerns that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul and taking away from us which I' very thankful for. But at the same time, are we? Because we are just moving this microfiber from the washing machine to the garbage can, to the garbage truck, to the landfill. So what are we really doing? Are we really accomplishing the mission that we want to do by protecting all of us, our fish, our animals, our children, our grandchildren? Are we looking at the bigger picture or are we just looking at today accomplishing what we want to do to save you and I, but not maybe saving our children down the road?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I I would love to write a bill that would solve all problems. And I super appreciate your I'm right there with you with your heart on this. Really appreciate the question. Like all of the conversations we have together, I would love if this could solve everything. Like all legislation, it's iterative. I'm I you know me, I will probably write a bill that will do that too. And one of the things that you said that I love is specifically, is this the best result? Oftentimes, for all of us as humans, we're quite ingenious. We don't develop a practice or a product until there's a medium to use in the first place. So this medium currently doesn't exist. My brain, when you said that, just went wild with, well, what other things could we do of it? Maybe someday someone will take this and make bricks out of it and we could use this for bricks to build houses instead of putting it in landfills. I don't know, but I'll be right there with you if we want to figure it out and start a company someday together. Let's go for it. But right now, that technology doesn't exist because the product doesn't exist for them to use.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So, want make sure I heard you right. We're going to start a company together.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: If you come up with the solution and the idea, let's go for it.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Perfect. Thank you Doctor. Kellis for answering my questions. Adam, speaker on the floor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bow.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Well, it's a great day because I just got a business offer to move forward after I leave the assembly, but I I I agree with the the sponsor on her goals and what she wants to do. Sometimes here in Albany, we always find a way to fix things without an end product to take care of that product much like recycling our glass. We have lots of recycled glass and plastics but we really don' have a home to use them. I just want to say thank you Madam Speaker for allowing me to ask a few questions and again I would love to support this bill we are going to get there but I would like to see an end to what we are going to do with those microfibers before we start asking our manufacturers and our constituents and the people that we represent and our families to pay more money for something that's going to end up in the landfill again. So thank you for allowing me to say a few words.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mister Lamondis.

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield? Sponsor yields.

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: Thank you. I just have a few questions. I wanna carry on to some of the questions my colleague was was asking. And and and this is all in the light of recognition that the capture of the microfiber plastic microfiber is a good thing. I I wanna go into the filter media. Is the idea that these are in line filters similar to a filter on on your home water system?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Correct.

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: Okay. And then, again, same line same line of questioning. The the media, the filter, whatever type of filter it is, whether it's disposable and you pull the filter out, throw the whole filter away, whether you pull the media that's collected out and clean the filter, different a little bit of a different issue, but I heard only landfill. And and I'm I'm wondering if this bill explored at all deep well injection, incineration as means of disposal of the filter media.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I find this line of questioning very interesting because if I write a bill that tries to solve all problems, there's criticism that it is unrealistic. If I create a bill that has a solution to one thing, I'm hearing that it should solve all problems. So I'm kind of fascinated by the line of questioning. But what is pertinent to this bill is, and I think for all of our legislation is, does it reduce harm? Does it fundamentally reduce harm? Does it solve everything? No. But it significantly reduces harm. Because right now, all of these microfibers are going everywhere unfiltered with none of it being removed. And what we're saying is that we want to capture a significant amount of it with these filters capturing in some cases up to 98% of these microfibers. Instead of it going into your child's brain or in your case your animals, it's making a system putting a system in place that it goes into landfills. Now, is that a solution indefinitely? Well, I mean, it has been a solution for hundreds of years for all of the material that we currently put in landfills. We could talk about trash bags and the fact that they're plastic and we put them in landfills and we all consider that a solution with no need for an additional follow-up solution. They're both plastic. This is microplastics, those are larger plastics, they're all plastic. So I'm confused a bit about that line of questioning. If it's good for some plastic, why wouldn't it be good for this plastic? We simply are saying we don't want this plastic indiscriminately all throughout our environment.

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: So there's not criticism of the premise of the bill. Okay? It's just critical questioning on what happens downstream. Ultimately, where I'm going is, if it's going into landfills, is it going to create higher taxes for people's trash? No. And and so that

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: These are let me be clear. These are microfibers. So if you look at what is in our landfills, the largest component of it is CD and D, right? The construction demolition debris. Those are the deconstruction or demolition of buildings and highways ripping up highways and roads, we're talking about microplastics.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Right.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So if you look at, for example, trash bags, again which is plastic, and the amount of mass that the trash bags increase in our landfills. Do you think that the trash bags that we collect and we put into landfills significantly increase our our trash expenses or what we get charged.

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: Totally different issue.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, no, it's not actually because that's plastic. We use it every time we throw away trash. This is also plastic but these are microfiber sizes. I would ask again, do we think that the material that we pull out of our dryers, the lint that we pull out of our dryers collectively as an entire state population significantly increases our our landfill fees.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: So

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: because this would be even less.

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: Understood. But where I'm going is, and on your plastic bag argument, of course, that that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am hammering at and trying to get to is somewhere down the line, this chamber's gonna gonna enact something that calls this hazardous waste, and it's going to add to people's tax bill somewhere at the town level, county level, state level, who knows what level, but I foresee that potentially happening. I wanna acknowledge your previous statement though as a as a good one, and I agree that part of something that that mitigates us significantly is the increased usage of natural fiber, cotton, wool, hemp, bamboo, etcetera. All of those things would reduce this. Nonetheless, I think that, automatically

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: taking

[John Lemondes Jr., Member of Assembly (126th District)]: this to, landfills without really looking through deep well injection and incineration just means that this that the bill itself is premature. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mister Bologna. Thank

[Unidentified Member]: you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few quick questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member]: So this is kind of predicated on the fact that if if you have a filter system for a new washing machine in 2030, that it's predicated on the fact that you're actually taking the time to clean out the filter. Correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Just like we do with our drying.

[Unidentified Member]: Totally get that. But, I will tell you, one third of all dryer ignitions come from people who forget to clean out their filters. So, my question is, you're saying that these filters operate between 9098% efficiency. Do they continue to operate at that efficiency if the filter is not cleaned out?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, I would actually think that it would continue to block because the existing microfibers would catch the new fibers. You would have a problem with the water but not an increase in the fibers going through.

[Unidentified Member]: Got it. So but it would be an issue if you forget to clean out your microfiber filter in your

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Yeah. Well, I I mean I can't control personal people's chosen behaviors with legislation in this case. I mean if they choose to not clean out their filter, well then it will decrease the function of the movement of the water through that system. But that is a personal choice at some point. I can't regulate the personal choice that they have, but what I can do is require that technology exists and is used that would reduce the harm of everyone else.

[Unidentified Member]: Got it. I just there's an irony in the fact that you talk about personal choice, but then we're also talking about requiring to have these filters in their in their washrooms. Did you get that. Right? Correct. Is that lost on you? Okay.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I mean, it's just like we require cars to have seat belts.

[Unidentified Member]: There's a lot of things that we require that

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: are Exactly. Very interesting to

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So,

[Unidentified Member]: want to get back to the the the price of an actual washing machine. I I heard we talking about filters a little bit earlier here where you're talking like, I think, you know, 40 to $50 per filter. That's one that you put in after the fact. But to actually produce the washing machine itself, can you give me, a ballpark price or how much more expensive it would be than a traditional washing machine?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: The last time I looked, those were competitive prices in What's the European market where they are a competitive price? I don't know. The last time I bought a washing machine was a very long time ago. What do you think it is?

[Unidentified Member]: Might be a couple $100 difference between an older model and a newer. And I guess my my question is what we have a tendency to do in this chamber is we have a tendency to kinda be very frivolous with other people's money. And we like to talk about things like affordability a lot, but then when we're talking, you know, about possibly requiring manufacturers to only sell certain types of washing machines, then we're really not worried about the affordability. So my question is this. I agree with your premise of the bill that that microfibers are not a good thing, and that we need to start to get those out of our general water supply and and out of the environment. But if this only impacts New York State, we're only doing this for New York State washing machines, What is the cost benefit analysis of getting those microfibers out of our environment versus the cost that is going to be on to, you know, everyday residents that are going be having to purchase, you know, washing machines? Where's the line for you?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So first of all it's really important to know this isn't going to require that people buy a new washing machine. The washing machine you have, so for example the washing machine that I have, I've been living in our house since we bought it for six years. This is the washing machine that was there from the previous person. It's about twenty years old.

[Unidentified Member]: At some point, it's So, going to

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: at some point, I will need a new filter, a new washing machine itself. Then I will need a new washing machine. So I just looked up prices of washing machines that exist and it said anywhere from 700 to 1,400. If you look at washing machines that exist right now, I've seen washing machines as high as 2,000. And those are ones without a filter. So when I say that these are competitive, they're absolutely in line with existing prices. You wouldn't have to buy a new one until you had to buy a new one anyway. What you're talking about is a system where it would require that people trade in or sell the washing machine or throw away the washing machine that they have before the end of its useful life. And that's not what this bill does. It simply says when they buy, the ones that will be on the market for the retail, like the retailers will be selling, will now be ones that have a filter. So I disagree with the assumption that this is being frivolous with other people's money because it's not.

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah. But if I go into Home Depot and I want to get the cheapest brand of washing machine, I can promise you it's not going to be the new one with a microfiber filter in it.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So several things. You don't have to. You can buy the external filter for $44. If you want to do the cheapest option possible, the cheapest option possible exists. You buy the cheapest washing machine and you buy the $44 filter. So there are very cheap options. This bill does not require that someone buy a washing machine with an in line or a built in filter to the washing machine.

[Unidentified Member]: Understood.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Nor does it require that washing machines be sold with them embedded into the washing machine. They can be sold with an external filter.

[Unidentified Member]: Understood. I live fifteen minutes away from Canada. If 2,030 hits, is there any issue for me going into Canada purchasing a wash washing machine that has no filter or anything like that and bring it back over?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Right. This bill and restrictions are not on the individual consumer.

[Unidentified Member]: I understand

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: This bill specifically and exclusively is related to the manufacturer.

[Unidentified Member]: Totally understand that.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So, if you as a consumer wanna drive across to Canada and buy a washing machine, this bill is unrelated to that.

[Unidentified Member]: Okay. And then, my last question here is, you say that there's no the memo says that there's no fiscal impact. Is that accurate?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Correct.

[Unidentified Member]: Alright. So, am I to assume that DEC then is going to be responsible for the testing and verifying and enforcing of the 90% filtration systems?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: No. So, what the bill says specifically, the language that it says, is that the manufacturer would be required to include a guarantee that it is aligned with this and complies with this legislation.

[Unidentified Member]: He was enforcing that.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So if they do not have that, then they could be held culpable.

[Elder Kelly Diane Galloway]: By what?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Is there someone who's going to be going to check every single washing machine?

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: No.

[Unidentified Member]: Okay. So where's the accountability then for the manufacturer?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Right at the bottom. If you look at section five, it's on the second page: Upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county council or a district attorney, a person or entity that violates this section shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for the first violation and not to exceed $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

[Unidentified Member]: Is that per washing machine?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: This is a violation. It says per violation.

[Unidentified Member]: Alright. So is that per washing

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: If you look at the language that it says, A manufacturer of a washing machine that is subject to the requirement of subdivision two of this section shall provide each person that offers such washing machine for sale or distribution in the state with a certificate of compliance stating that the washing machine is in compliance with the requirement of this section and contains a microfiber filtration system. That is section three a of this law. So the law is very explicit that it states for that machine, needs to have a certificate of compliance. So, they would be out of compliance if that washing machine did not have a certificate of compliance.

[Unidentified Member]: And the only way that anyone's ever gonna, like, figure that out is if someone actually files a claim. Correct? Correct. General. Okay. Okay. And, again, is that per washing machine or is that per blanket violation? Like, if they distribute, like, a thousand I don't think that's a ridiculous question.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: No. I don't think so either, and I'm answering it. It is per per What is it violation? Here per violation. And if you look earlier, it's very explicit. It says, for each washing machine that is sold, it must have a certificate of compliance.

[Unidentified Member]: Got it.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So just like, for example, every lamp at the end of its cord has the warning on it. Every packet of cigarettes that is sold has the Surgeon General's warning on it. If it doesn't, that package of cigarettes would be out of compliance. Or that lamp would be out of compliance. Those are just two examples that I'm throwing out. We do this all the time for cases in which we want to make explicit to the consumer that something is out of compliance and doesn't provide the protections that the state requires by law.

[Unidentified Member]: Fair enough. Thank you miss Collis. I really appreciate you answering my questions.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Simpson.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the bill sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield? Always. The sponsor yields.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: So I want to start. So can you describe what these filters are made of? Is it plastic housing? Is it metal housing? Size of it? I mean I've seen your hands gesture, I reach

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: wish I could do microfiber size, So but I

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: give me an idea what this filter looks like, what it is, what it's constructed of.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So, the microfiber filters that I have studied were made out of an amalgam of different metals.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: Are any of them made out of plastic?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: It's such a good question. The ones that I researched, no they were not. Because of course would

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: defeat the want purpose a little bit.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: On to the next one. Municipal water systems, they have filtration. Are they currently filtering these products, these fibers when they're treating wastewater?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Down to this size, I actually don't think in any cases they are to this level. But what I saw even if there are some systems, right? Because for wastewater treatment facilities, there's huge variance in the technologies that they use. This would be, these filters remove up to 98%. The lowest one that I saw was about 90%. Is there any wastewater treatment facility technology that exists that filters to that level? Absolutely not. Which is why we would be doing this because again, when we are creating laws, we're looking at what is the current harm and is the harm severe enough and is there technology that exists that could significantly reduce that harm and then therefore as government is our is our responsibility to ensure that we are able and we do reduce that harm. And that's what this does.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: I appreciate that, but have you researched whether there's filtration technology that can be used at the municipal wastewater treatment

[Clerk of the Assembly]: There is not.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Not at this level.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: Okay. I'm going move on to my next question.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Absolutely. Those

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: fibers that are collected, they either go to a landfill or in many cases they may be transferred by a truck to an incinerator. Do we know the impact to the air quality when these products, these microplastics, whatever this is gonna filtrate, what the impact to the environment in the air?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: It would not be any different than the plastic that exists in all of that trash that we're incinerating. It would not be any greater than the air pollution that we currently experience from incinerators. So the question that you're asking is, would the air pollution that we currently get from incinerators be significantly notably worse if we included microfibers in the current trash that we burn in incinerators? Absolutely not.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: So you're making that statement but has there been any research, any work done on that because there's a lot of groups that come here to Albany that advocate for zero plastics in our environment and incineration is one of their strongest points against dealing with it. Advance recycling, we get a lot of pushback on advanced recycling because of its connection to using heat And I just want to know how you come to the point of saying there is no significant impact to the environment.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm I'm being very, very specific and so I want to be respectful. There's two totally separate questions here. One is whether or not I support incineration, which I don't.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: No, didn't ask that.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: The second but just to be clear, so when you are looking in science and you're looking at the impact of incinerators, there is a specific impact. Right? And the question that you're asking is: Is the inclusion of microfibers into the substrate, the material that goes into the incinerators, significantly increase from the current state of the air pollution that incineration currently releases? Does the addition of microfibers into that substrate add to what is currently existing as air pollution from the incinerators? And I'm saying the differential that would be existing exclusively related causally to the microfibers being added to that substrate on top of the air pollution that we currently see. And I'm saying no because there is no difference in the base molecules of the plastic that's here and the plastic that already exists in the substrate that we are putting into an incinerator. That's what I'm saying.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: Well, wish I could have more time to be able to debate that with you but I'm going to simply say I'm going to simply say that I don't think that that is the truth because this is based on probably most people's experience with municipal water treatment systems and then you're going to take it out of that system, but it doesn't account for the thousands, many thousands of New Yorkers that have septic tanks that is wholly contained on their property and is basically protecting the property around that septic system from microplastics contamination. It's not harming anybody else's unless there is a failure in the system reaching a water stream or a waterway that will make it into someone's reach. So I want to move on to the next one. There's a potential for these products, this waste being brought and transferred to other locations outside of New York state. And even within New York state where we are going to see a lot of these systems enacted in New York City where there is a much higher population and brought to an Upstate location, another land Is there any concern about that?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, I have a concern about trash in general going from one place hundreds of miles to landfills that are in my district or near my district or like on my water. We could have a longer conversation about that. The question here is whether or not we feel that the addition of microplastics in this context would significantly change or add to that problem that already exists. So I think it's really important that we don't conflate a problem that already exists and try and say that this would somehow substitute and be replacing that existing problem. That problem already exists. The question that you're asking me is whether or not we think the addition of this would somehow make that problem exist when it currently doesn't or would make that problem that we already have worse? We already have that problem. That problem exists. Do I feel that the inclusion of this in our trash and that trash going to landfills would somehow explode and make the existing problem worse. And I'm saying statistically speaking I do not believe that that would be worse than the reality that we have now which is leaving them unfiltered, going into our water, going into our soil, going into our oceans, significantly decreasing the immune function of animals, our livestock, our children, our bodies. So we sometimes do this false argument where we try and pick something apart and say you're not perfect, therefore we don't want you. And when I'm saying life isn't perfect. Does this significantly improve the reality that we're experiencing? And I'm I'm saying that it does. It will significantly improve the reality that we are experiencing collectively, which is also the purpose of government. We might not be able to make every individual's life perfect, but we govern for an entire population and an entire planet. And so collectively, it is significantly better for the collective population and for the planet. And therefore I am supporting it and sponsoring the bill for that reason.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: I appreciate that but I don't even know the answer to the question that I asked

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: from Okay. Do want ask appreciate the

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: the dialogue. For answering my questions and attempting to enlighten me. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Matthew Simpson, Member of Assembly (114th District)]: You know, many times in this legislature since I've been here, we passed a lot of legislation that cost people money, well intended, only to find out that the research wasn't done to actually make a difference. We've created another problem. As I said in my debate, was talking about incineration and influencing our air by these contaminants that, in many cases, can be dealt with differently, a different approach. But we always move to, let's force residential property owners to buy a filter. But there's no science that says this is going to reduce the amount of microplastics in the environment. It's shifting it from one part of the state to another part of the state. It may be removing some from the landfill and then ultimately ending up in the incinerator and into our air. So I don't think this is the solution. I think more work needs to be done. I would ask my colleagues to not support this bill and put more effort into finding solutions for the problems that we have today. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mr. Tague? Thank

[Christopher Tague, Member of Assembly (102nd District)]: you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: a Will the sponsor yield? Of course, mister speaker. Yields.

[Christopher Tague, Member of Assembly (102nd District)]: Thank you. A couple things. The and one of the questions I was gonna ask you and you answered it was these are inline filters. And I actually did a little research while I was sitting right here. They're actually very similar to a filter that you would have on your vehicle. And they actually cost, if they're not already built into the system, they're $98, which I don't think is a lot to ask. I actually gotta be quite honest with you. I'm actually gonna support this bill, and I wasn't sure where I was at the very beginning. But after hearing this debate and listening to your answers to many of the questions, I'm gonna support this bill. Because I think that you have made it clear to all of us that this isn't gonna save the world with this problem, but it's gonna help. And it's better that we do something to help than to do nothing. And my one question to you is, do we know how many manufacturers are actually have these types of washing machines with the filter already in them that is available to the public?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So, the focus has been and thank you for the question the focus has been not to have it be in the machine. So, I know that the last time I looked, it was about eight months ago, there were two that were doing it. There was one to me really that seemed viable. So the focus is more to have it be in line right now. But what I suspect is, because there's 12 companies that already do it, I think that create these filters, that is what has been driving down the price just when you have more competitors. I suspect, of course, as we have more this law passes in seven states where it is active, the more states that implement it, of course, the more competitive it will be and it'll drive the price down more. But I suspect the beginning it will be the inline filters that will be predominantly used.

[Christopher Tague, Member of Assembly (102nd District)]: Well, I actually just looked at one online. It's very similar to, like I said, it's car filter. It goes in a, you know, it goes in a housing and everything flows through that. You know, and you probably can't answer this question. This is something that we'll have to look to the manufacturers. But these filters may last two or three years before you have to replace the filter. That's a question we need to ask. One thing that no one asked, and I think that's important for all of us to know, is what types of illnesses or health issues

[Nader J. Sayegh, Member of Assembly (90th District)]: are

[Christopher Tague, Member of Assembly (102nd District)]: caused from the microfibers. I think it's important for everybody and even the people that may be listening to session here at home so they understand how important of an issue this is.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: No. I'm I'm so glad you asked this question because this this was the inspiration, very specifically, for why I introduced this bill. Microplastics are not a hypothetical pollutant. They are now widely detected in water, food, air, wildlife and in the human body. They have been found in multiple human organ systems and biological samples including blood, lungs, placenta, breast milk, semen, urine, stool and sputum. The most important human exposure routes are ingestion and inhalation. People are exposed through drinking water, food, indoor and outdoor air, dust and consumer products including synthetic textiles as one of the major reasons. In humans, the evidence of exposure is strong. Have a whole list of studies that have been done. Absence of I'm sorry, I'll go down. Microplastics can act as physical stressors in the body and in animals, especially depending on size, shape and polymer type. Fibers and fragments can irritate tissues, lodge in organs and trigger inflammatory responses. A major concern is inflammation. Human, animal and cell studies increasingly associate microplastic exposure with inflammatory responses in the gut, lungs, blood vessels and other tissues. Oxidative stress is another reoccurring finding. Many toxicology studies report that microplastics can generate oxidative stress which is a common pathway to cellular injury, tissue dysfunction and chronic disease processes. Microplastics may disrupt the gut microbiome. That matters because gut microbiome disruption has implications for digestion, immune regulation, inflammation and metabolic health. Gastrointestinal harm is one of the better supported potential human health concerns. Recent evidence reviews conclude microplastics are suspected to harm digestive health based on the totality of animal, mechanistic and human evidence. Respiratory harm is also a serious concern especially for airborne fibers. Inhaled particulates can deposit in the airways and lungs and studies point to airway inflammation. Reproductive and developmental effects are among the most concerning areas of emerging evidence. Reviews report concerns about endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, impacts on fetal development and findings of particles that exist in placenta itself, meconium and breast milk. Endocrine disruption is a central talking point because plastics are not just inert particles. Plastics contain additives such as phthalates and bisphenols and microplastics can also carry other pollutants. Those additives are already known to interfere with hormones, reproduction, and development. And I have six pages of this, and I'll stop there.

[Christopher Tague, Member of Assembly (102nd District)]: Well, I appreciate that. And I think that that's one of the things that was missing here this afternoon in this debate is actually understanding the illnesses and health problems associated with this and that you're taking a position to try to make it better. And I think you mentioned it earlier, it's not the fact that you're saving the world from this, but any little thing that we can do is help. And I think the fact that if you have a washing machine now for $98 and it's the most expensive unit that I saw, you can put this system in. It doesn't look like it's that awful hard to put in place. But my hope is that manufacturers sell this in line system in their washing machines so everybody We could do used to allow cars to travel down the highway without mufflers. Now everybody's got one. I haven't heard anybody complain about the cost of a muffler on a on their new car right now because it comes with it. So, again, I learned a lot from sitting here. At the beginning of this, I was really wasn't sure which way I was gonna go on this bill. But after you answered questions, some of my colleagues had asked some questions. I think that, you know, we talk about common sense here. I think that we would want something like this in place to protect not just ourselves, but our children and our grandchildren. You know, so I I'm gonna support this bill. I think there are some things that we need to look at moving forward to help with this. Some of my colleagues mentioned the disposal and what do we do with it. I think that's something that we need to work on and come up with a, you know, a good thing. But, you know, you had brought up earlier, like, the dry the dryers. We already have that. I'm gonna tell you right now, even if, you know, it's not really a filter system in them. It's just a thing that goes down in. I think this is actually safer and more effective because everything's It's running through being filtered and what comes out the other end is clear. In a dryer, we have to remember that it's dry. So, when you go to pull it out, there are gonna be fragments of that microfiber that is gonna go in the air in your in your home. Now maybe we need to work on making a better system within the dryers too when we take this out. But hopefully, with this system, there'll be less in the dryer filter than what you would normally have because now you're filtering out some of it through the washer. So, with that, Madam Madam Speaker, I will be supporting this bill, and thank you for allowing me to debate Doctor. Kellis. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, Mr. Durso.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for just a couple of brief

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield? Of course, Mr. Durso. Sponsor yields.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Thank you, Ms. Kels. I appreciate it. So just to clarify, why are we waiting until 2030 to implement this?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Actually, for some of the reasons that mister Tague just pointed out, we are giving and to me, it's just gracious to do it overnight. I'm giving time for the, you know, the the entire market to catch up. I would hope actually when we put this in place that manufacturers that aren't producing it would see that there would be a market and we would have a greater diversity of options by the time 2030 comes. But the thing that's important is what we know is by 2030, the minimum we would have is what already exists and that would be enough. But by 2030, I would suspect we'd have a much more robust market because we have a lot of consumption in New York. That's just honest.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: So it's it's it's more or less like New York would be leading and pushing the market into that way to have it so that microfiber filters coming in a washing machine pre built in would kind of be the norm, correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, wouldn't be pushing the technology because there are other countries that use this significantly and there's large markets for it. So, it wouldn't be the technology, but we would be leading those the inline for example, like the I'm sorry, the inline are already here. They're very easy to get. You can buy it online, you can get it in a know, you

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: can buy it

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: from Amazon. I mean, say that, please don't. Buy it from the company directly. But so, no, that wouldn't change. But but I suspect that we would have more of the built into the the washing machines, which also I would like to see.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Right. And that's really more the the idea of this, right, is to get it so that the manufacturers eventually are not just giving you the option of that that side filter or a secondary filter, it would would be built into the machine. Correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I mean, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. If it does happen, great. Again, the more options, the greater the market, the greater diversity, the greater competition. I think that's just a robust market. But it seems respectful.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Sure. So, if those technologies are available now, in other words, the secondary market portion of it, right, not not having it built into the the washing machine, but having that piece that is available now

[Yudelka Tapia, Member of Assembly (86th District)]: Mhmm.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Why wait another four years to do it? It just seems to me that the technology isn't quite there yet, which other states, as you know, that have vetoed this bill have said. The technology is not caught up yet.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, the legislature didn't veto it. Only the governor did, which is one person, and the entire legislative body very strongly supported it. So we can have a longer conversation about that and why and what was the impetus. In my experience, I would love if we did it tomorrow because it's true, the technology exists. In the reality that we live in, as you know, sometimes you negotiate in order to be able to bring a whole body in support of something. This is the bill that we ended up with. So if you're asking what I would like personally, what I think that we would be capable of, absolutely I would love to see it sooner. Is this the bill that's in front of us today? Yes.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: No. No. And and I understand it, but just trying to understand and again, I I I get the intentions are good and and as my colleague was saying, I actually agree with a lot of it. My concern is what if those companies can't meet those goals by 2030? Are are we gonna have every single manufacturer of washing machines for because this is for residential and commercial. Correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Correct.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Okay. So if they can't meet those goals by 2030, then does everybody have to have that secondary piece? And then just the second part of that question is, I believe someone asked asked it before, but I'm not sure how you answered. If that secondary piece is sold, right, the extra filter which you'll have to have, which is not made by that company, does that void any of the warranty for that particular washing machine, commercial or residential?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: What it what it requires is that the washing machine be sold with a filter. Right. Those filters exist. What I suspect would happen in the market is that there would be contracts and relationships between the companies that produce washing machines. If they choose to not produce a filter themselves or a washing machine that doesn't have an inline filter, they would probably be a a business relationship and partnership which happens all the time.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Right. Which is really not our problem in the legislature.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: That would be the manufacturer but that's their choice. Would have many choices within the market.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: What happens if in four years, four short years or three and half years, however we wanna look at it, the the the manufacturers can't meet that goal of this and now don't have that ability? I

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I'm I'm gonna just say what I

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: said before.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I think apologize. That is part of why we are giving a ramp an on ramp. So we're giving those years

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: What if they never get on the

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: is different with the technology existing because the technology absolutely already exists. There's been two decades or more of research that has gone into this. So there's been significant research unlike what has been said before. This would allow for scale up for companies to join into the market. So this is not about the technology, this is about scale. Mister Does four years provide sufficient time for that scale? I I I think so.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: So, Mike and I apologize. I know someone asked before about companies that are selling in New York State now. Manufacturers that's think you said there's about 12?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: That is what I found.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: How many of those companies sell a washing machine that is already has the technology in it of that microfiber filter

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: attached Yeah. To it I found Bosch and Siemens. We're the one that the company they come from BSH. That is a company that produces an in in machine. The parent company is BSH and it has Bosch and Siemens are two companies, sub companies within Bosch. That was one that I found. One company.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: One company that sells two different types of washing machines?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well those are two different companies within BSH that exist in The United States. And they BSH manufactures the in machine system.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: So, Mike, the the question before was how many companies right. And and I I could be wrong, so I apologize. Was how many companies produce washing machines in New York State or was it just who sells?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Oh my goodness. Wow. You guys are very excited about this piece of legislation. I'm getting I'm getting added ones each moment. So those are the companies that I found that produce in this moment. In this

[Chantel Jackson, Member of Assembly (79th District), Chair, Legislative Women’s Caucus]: United States. Technology.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Oh, okay. No. That's I I I was just I was actually clarifying a question maybe someone else answered. I didn't know if you were understood it. I I didn't.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: That I would be able to go online and purchase it as someone in The United States. Sure. So I thought about it last year. I went online. I found it. So there's one. Did I purchase it? I didn't. From it was from Bosch.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Okay. So we And

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: when I looked.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: So as of right now, there's one possibly two companies out of the 12 that have that technology.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: That is what I found.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Okay. And and and just for clarification, you did say it was for both residential and commercial. Correct? Correct. Was there any difference between the requirements for residential or commercial?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: So in the bill it very specifically has one difference of requirement that was asked of us by the industry which is that the that the statement, the specific statement that's required to be visible for the residents not be visible in the commercial washing machines and that was asked of us to add to the bill as an amendment. And you will see that we have made amendments to this bill, and that was specifically a request from the industry.

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: Okay. Great.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: And then my last question is that secondary piece you're saying. So if the companies do not keep up with the technology, decide not to go that route, but they still wanna sell in New York, they have to obviously sell a filter Mhmm. Right, that goes with, I guess, that particular washing machine or as you said before, an inline filter. Those inline filters are are or those filters will be installed by who?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Well, I mean, when I have things, I can install it myself or I can hire someone to install it. It's up to the consumer.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Okay. I'm only asking and and I agree with you. It is up to the consumer, but some of the things that are coming out of some of the other states that I quickly looked up that do have similar pieces of legislation, I believe there's seven you said?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Correct.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Okay. And is a lot of them are do you have the concerns? And listen. I understand that. There's always concerns when anything changes 100%. Technology changes, but there is a concerns of those filters clogging. There are those those concerns of people that are putting on those filters by themselves and we have leaks. I don't if you ever had your washing machine leak inside your home. It destroys your entire house because it just doesn't stop running.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: It has happened to me. Yes.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Yeah. It's it's a nightmare. So, just concerns like that, I'd like to see in my opinion that technology be done and I'd like to see this happen. But, with those safety protocols put into those washing machines so that we don't end up with leaks and clogs like that that which are going to destroy someone's house.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Yeah. And I think the thing that's important is do we feel like if someone is not cleaning I mean, so right now, already my washing machine can clog with stuff that like I have a dog, for example, and it fills up with hair around the inside rim of the plastic. And if I did not clean that, my washing machine actually ends up clogging and it doesn't work. Right? There are ways in which that already happens. And I will say again, I cannot control for human behavior in this Whether they choose to use a machine properly or not, I can only ensure that the technology and the machine is what is sold because it addresses a fundamental problem and improves it. You know, if we were saying that, you know, over 90% of people were going to choose to do this improperly, I think that would be a different question. But I would say in our already existing system, the percentage of people that choose to not use their machines properly is probably pretty low. But I don't think that that is the responsibility or the purview of this bill.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Okay. Thank you, miss Kelsey. I appreciate your answers.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Of course. Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Miss Giglio.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I feel a bit like a Jack in the Box.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Sponsor will yield.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: I will yield. Thank you, Doctor. Kellis. So I know that you do your homework and you wouldn't have brought this bill forward if you hadn't done your homework. So my question for you is can you share with us the details of Governor Newsom's veto message on this bill? Because that seems to be the only state that has passed it and it was vetoed in 2023. Can you share with us the details of the Governor's veto?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I do not have it in front of me. I read it probably a year and a half ago, year ago? I'm not sure when. But if you would like to read it to us because you seem to have it in front of you, would love to hear it.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Well, one of the one of the things that we discuss in this chamber often is affordability and expense of the filters and expense of the washing machine costs and other matters that come into play when it comes to this were one of the veto messages. But and and I'll go on the bill. Thank you. Madam Speaker on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: If we don't know why the one state that passed this legislation, why the governor vetoed the bill, then how can we be putting it forward and discussing it? We talk about affordability, we talk about a crisis of energy, we talk about the cost of appliances. When I order a new filter for my refrigerator, from the water that comes through my refrigerator, costs about $65 every three months that I have to replace that. And I share my concerns with my colleagues about washing machines getting clogged and that the recycling of these plastics back into the environment whether it be through a landfill or an incinerator in the air or the groundwater that we really need to address that. And I think that we've made some pretty forward movements towards eliminating PFAS and PFOs in our drinking water and in our groundwater and in our environment. And I think that that is a good track. But to put a more expensive burden on the taxpayers of the state of New York at this particular time when no other state has done it and the one other state that had done it, it was vetoed. So I will be voting no and I will hope that we will get, if it does pass, a veto message and that this will be discussed further and that the complications in the bill and in the acquisition of these washing machines are addressed before we put another burdensome costly policy on the residents of the state of New York. Thank you madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mister Friend.

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Yes, I will.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The sponsor yields.

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: So your ultimate goal, I believe, with this bill is to remove plastics from getting into the environment. Is that correct? Excuse me? Your ultimate goal with this bill is to remove plastics from the washing cycle so that it doesn't get into the environment?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Microplastics, yes.

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: Microplastics, correct. So, I'm looking at currently, this stuff is available off the shelf. I appreciate you getting that four year timeframe, but I don't see the reason that we can't move forward even more quickly. We're seeing this all the time in the headlines, all these disastrous effects with microplastics. Everybody has a credit card sized amount of microplastics within their body, it crosses the blood brain barrier. We have these microplastics in our brains and have deleterious effects on us. So, with your bill, you're saying that we could just do the inline and you're looking to filter the water coming out of the machine. So again, that filter afterwards, mean same thing with the industrial scale, instead of having maybe a filter on each machine, you could be filtering the entire water supply coming off of all those machines before they go into the public water system,

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: correct?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: That system and technology does not exist right now, but this technology does?

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: Right. So we can buy the filters, can have a plumber come in and install it if you don't know how to do it yourself. We could be doing that immediately to protect our environment, protect all of our families and the children around us. The only issue that I might see going forward would be to maybe have a carve out for someone that is on a septic system, because you're already your effluent from your washing machine is going into that septic tank and you end up pumping that every couple of years and sending that off to the landfill be to be taken care of at that point. But otherwise, thank you for bringing Brookdale forward, and I will be supporting it.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Thank you so

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: much. Thank you, madam.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: This section will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Well, thank you, madam speaker. So the minority conference will generally speaking be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But as we picked up from the debate, looks like there's going to be a mix of votes. But we're going to start with a party position in the negative and we'll see what happens. If anybody wants to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats. Thanks.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be a few of us that may decide to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seat.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Miss Kellis, to explain her vote.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I wanted to thank everyone for, I think, was a very dynamic conversation today. I did want to just add a little bit more information. I talked about the health impacts, but I would like to share a few other important pieces. Microplastics are now found essentially everywhere but predominantly in water sources, oceans, rivers, lakes, estuaries, groundwater related systems, soils, agricultural lands, forests, polar ice, sediments, beaches and the air. One of the strongest policy arguments is that prevention matters more than clean up. Once microplastics are dispersed through water, sediment, soil and air retrieval is technically difficult, that is true. This is the first technology that has been created over the last two decades and has been used almost all of those two decades to reduce the amount of these plastics. So I would like to see them implemented here in New York State because the technology is strong, it exists, microfibers are one of the major sources of primary plastics. Wastewater treatment plants do not solve the problem completely. So, that is also the reason for this. I think that it's important to note in marine systems, wildlife ingestion is widespread. That creates risk to biodiversity, fisheries, and the integrity of marine food webs. So I've heard a lot of support from farmers, but also hunters for this and I've seen notable bipartisan support. I don't think that this is a partisan issue. I don't think that it should be. I think that this affects everybody regardless of what color comes before your name on the voting ballot. And I want to thank everyone here for listening to the conversation with an open mind and an open heart because as I said during this discussion, it's very rare that you get a piece of legislation that solves all problems, but this will make the world better

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: Than where we are. I am in the positive and the affirmative for this.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Miss Callis in the affirmative. Mister Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I I saw I was sitting here listening to the debate for this bill and the last bill, and I just wanted to point out something that occurred to me between the two of them that came out in the debate and something that I've observed over the last, you know, year plus that I've been in the assembly. I think we've got a sort of corporate culture problem in the state of New York where we have a feeling that, well, we're New York. We're big. We can do it differently than everybody else. Everybody has to come to us. And that came out in the first bill, came out in in this bill in the course of the debate when it was pointed out that other states are doing something different, other states aren't doing this or we're the first one to do it. That is sort of the attitude that's baked in to this building and I think over the course of decades and centuries that we're New York. Everybody's gotta do business with us. I don't know if that was ever true, but it's certainly not true now. And people in greater and greater numbers are doing business in other places and moving to other places. And when we do something that other states are not doing, that puts additional regulations on businesses. It makes things less affordable and it just increases that. So I think we need an attitude adjustment as a a state and so I'll be voting no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Sentholinski, the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, one fifteen. Noes, 28.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The bill is passed. Calendar number 130 two, clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number 4850, calendar one thirty two, miss Rasik, an act to amend the civil service law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: An explanation has been requested, miss Rasik.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill requires that each state agency establish a policy and program to allow employees to do telework to the maximum extent possible without a decline in employee performance. Each agency would designate a teleworking coordinator who will oversee the implementation of the program. And this is a bill we've seen before.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Happy to.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you very much. So we have discussed this bill over the last couple of years but for the benefit of everyone, you know, we've we've seen well, let me ask you first. Have has the bill changed at all since the bill that we debated last year?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: It has not.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay. Alright. And the the reason that that bill did not get across the finish line is the Senate. So we passed it but it just didn't get through the Senate last year.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: In the Senate I believe it went to third reading or got very close to passing but ran out of time.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay, alright. So the language of the bill talks about, I'm just going to quote it states that each state agency shall establish a policy and program to allow employees to perform all or a portion of their duties through teleworking to the maximum extent possible without diminished employee performance. So I really want to focus on that particular part of It's the not a very long bill, but that's the part I really want to focus on. Sure. So first of all, I guess out of all of our state agencies, are there agencies that have no policy in place? I would think that our state agencies would already have some kind of a telework policy in place. Did you know?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: I believe at this point it's a patchwork. Some do, some do not. Certainly after the pandemic we saw more agencies take an interest in telework and expanding that. I can also speak to the city of New York. The city of New York in 2023 launched a pilot program with DC 37 workers, 1.1 city workers, and they actually found it to be so successful in retention and employee satisfaction that they have decided last year to continue the pilot program.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay. So would it be fair to say that this is kind of taking that New York City pilot and applying it throughout the state?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: It actually takes it's actually modeled on what the federal government does. Let me just pull that up really quickly. They

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: sorry, because I don't want

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: to speak out of turn. In 2010, they passed a law at the federal level requiring the head of each executive agency to establish a policy under which eligible agency employees would be authorized to telework. Every year they do annual reporting and they presumably tinker with it. It works for some agencies more than others. And this is modeled on that. So we create a coordinator at each agency that would figure out, and I think this was your question last year, which titles would be eligible, which employees would be eligible, and go through that process.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Okay.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: It's not a mandate for each agency to do telework. Some agencies could presumably decide it doesn't work for anyone. We're not prescribing a one size fit all.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: So when and I appreciate that, that it's not every agency is the same in terms of what each job entails and which jobs would be more appropriate or lend itself more to the idea of teleworking. I can appreciate all of that. What about just agency culture? I would think that there's just a different maybe agency culture from agency to agency as far as preferring in person versus telecommuting. Is that factored into this at all?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: This does not speak to that and that could very well be true. But what I also know is that we have a huge issue in state government with a lot of vacancies and you know even this year Governor Hochul explained that there would be a large wave of retirements coming. By 2030, one in five New Yorkers will be 60 and we're just going to see that bear out in state government jobs. So we need to really focus on not just figuring out how to fill these jobs but how to retain the workforce. Telework has been found to be one of those tools.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: I imagine that it does and it might make people more satisfied, but I'm interested in the part of the bill that talks about without diminished employee performance. I mean how would that the bill doesn't speak to how that would be measured either.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: No, we don't speak to the implementation of that and I guess to your earlier point, implementation, the culture of each agency and its telework coordinator would figure that out.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: I think if I'm looking at the bill, the only part that gives me some pause and some concern is the portion that says to the maximum extent possible because there is where I think that it's almost like we're putting the thumb on the scale a little bit to favor the development of a policy that to the maximum extent possible favors teleworking. So can you just talk about why that language was specifically included? I mean I'm fine with developing a policy. I think every agency ought to have a policy and probably a lot of them I hope that they already do, but why to the maximum extent possible?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: I think it's a performance safeguard and again state employees will be evaluated on their output, on their productivity and performance and not just physical presence on-site. That's what we're trying to get at here.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay. Is there any projection at all or that you're aware of? I know it doesn't really say it in the bill, but is there any projection on economic impact that widespread remote work might have on a city like Albany which is the seat of our state government?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: I haven't seen any studies but nationwide I have seen studies that show telework actually improves outcomes at different businesses and different agencies.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Alright. Those are all the questions that I really have for this year. I appreciate your responses. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is interesting. Think that all of us that have been that went through 2020 and the years following with the pandemic, we all, I think, experienced what it was like to be doing session from by Zoom or be taking a lot of our meetings that we would ordinarily have in our district offices by Zoom. And the, you know, the concept of working with remote work being a piece of that is something that I think we all got to know up close and personal. I think my feeling is as time marches on, as we get into now 2026 and we're further and further removed from the pandemic, I think that many we've seen in private industry that there are a number of companies that have started to back away from teleworking to the extent that they did during the pandemic or even in the year or so afterwards. And I think that there are many reasons for that. I appreciate the bill itself just requires the development of the plan and leaves it in the agency's discretion about how to set up that plan. My issue again that I have with the bill is just that it says that it shall develop this plan and program through teleworking to the maximum extent possible. I think that there are agencies that may just have a certain culture. Maybe their work could be done through telework, but that their culture, the feeling in that agency is we want you with yourself in your chair at your desk five days a week and that's what we want and that's what we expect and that's we believe that that encourages more one on one communication, in person communication. We think it's better than communication over Zoom. We find people to be more productive. All of those reasons, you know, I know that they could develop a program or a policy that says that, but I think the fact that the language of the bill says to the maximum extent possible telegraphs a desire that the that the that they have teleworking, you know, options and and to a great extent. So some of I would expect that just as we did in previous years, we're gonna have a mixed vote on this. Some of us feel one way or the other on this. Certainly, Employees Federation supports it. I have no doubt that as far as people's satisfaction with their jobs, it might increase. I mean, if if you're able to, you know, be professional and still have pajama bottoms on and do your work a few days a week and you're still getting your work done, I mean God bless, I never found that I could really do it very successfully. I tend to do Zooms and have like my dog on the couch behind me getting into the frame and that's always really fun. But I don't know, I just think that I personally prefer in person work. I know that we want to try to encourage people to apply for work and apply for these jobs that are open and available. So I can kind of see both sides of this. But I appreciate the sponsor answering my questions again this year and I appreciate your time, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Ms. Giglio?

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Thank you Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: Yep, I'm happy to.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Thank you. So who decides in the departments who's eligible to work from home?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: According to this bill it would be the telework coordinator in each agency.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: So that would be a new position that would be created which would be a telecoordinator?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: Not necessarily. There could be someone already in the agency who could be designated as the telework coordinator.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: So that that hasn't been established yet as to who would be the person that decided?

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: Bill does not speak to that. Leave leaves it to the discretion of each agency.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Okay. And then, because I think that if there was a favorite in the office that it was decided that that person can work from home two days a week but the other person can't, that it would create animosity and some sort of interoffice work productivity level that would say, well, why does he or she get to work from home and I don't? It could be a matter of favoritism, not necessarily merit. So I was just curious as to how that person that could work from home would be selected and whether that would be available to everybody within the department to rotate in and out.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: So just like you would have any other workplace grievance, you could bring that to the relevant person within your agency, presumably someone at HR, and they could go through that process. This is no different. If you have a telework grievance, it would be like any other HR problem to resolve. I think the most important piece to remember is that agencies can determine which roles are eligible and which are not. They would have to report on that to us and so there is some fairness built into the bill.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: And what about equipment? So if people are told you can work from home, are we going to be supplying a fax machine and monitors and computers and copy machines so that they could print stuff out and look at it and compare it to something else? I mean, or is it just going be a phone call and I'll get back to you when I'm in the office? Which is what I've heard when I've had people reach people on the other end that are working from home is they don't have the technology at home that they need to answer the questions to satisfy my inquiry.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: This legislation does not speak to implementation at all.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: But there could be a fiscal note attached to this bill if that were the case and we were setting people up home offices so that they could work from home and have a productive day and communicating with people that may be reaching out to them for help.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: Yes and I would say the flip side, the flip side to your question is that telework has shown to increase job satisfaction, retention, which could end up actually saving the state in hiring costs and actually be a solution to the employee shortage we're seeing in civil service.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: Okay. Well, I at the budget hearings, we had discussed why there was a shortage in state workers and I think a lot of it has to do with the nexus between Department of Labor and people that are on unemployment versus the vacancies in state positions that could be filled if that nexus was created between the Department of Labor and unemployment and the jobs that they could place for. So that, number one. And in speaking to, you know, with my colleague, with the economy of scale and people going to work and socializing, Senator Palumbo has a salutatorianvaledictorian meeting every year where we have 10 school districts that come and we question them and we ask them, you know, if you had a preference of whether you would want to work from home as you did through high school when you had to work from home through COVID or go to work or go to school, which would you prefer? And all of them said for our mental health, we would rather be in an environment where we can communicate with our colleagues, we can talk about ideas, we can have access to information and not work from home. So a lot of them didn't want to work from home. So it was just a matter of finding jobs. Have you ever called and gotten somebody at the other end of the line that you were trying to get information from and you had a baby crying or a dog barking or something because I certainly have and where they've had to say we're going to have to call you back. But I've had that experience. Have you ever

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: had that experience? I mean I have a baby at home so that happens to me all the time.

[Jodi Giglio, Member of Assembly (2nd District)]: So when you're working at home you're taking care of your baby too? Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, I'm just thank you very much for answering Thank my you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, one twenty five. Noes, 18.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes for the purpose of an introduction.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker, for the opportunity to provide an introduction for several of our members. But I I wanna begin by saying in the spirit of my parents, past master Colin Davis and past matron Clara Davis, now deceased, but members of Paramount Chapter and Lodge respectively, as I am also a member of Paramount. On behalf of our colleagues, Gary Pretlow is a member of Saint Joseph's Lodge, number 17. Nora Burrows, Doric Lodge, number 53. George Alvarez, Prince Hall, number 14. L Taylor, 14. Kwame Farrell, sons of kings, 1 23. Manny Delosotos, Prince Hall, 14. Latrice Walker, Sunshine chapter number 34. On behalf of all of our colleagues, we would like to welcome the grandmaster and grand matron of the Prince Hall Lodge and Chapter. We have doctor Morton who is the grandmaster. He's standing. Yes. And we also have Jean Apollin who's the deputy grandmaster. Kevin Wardley, senior grandmaster Santonia Sanchez, junior grand warden Marsha Mack, grand worthy matron Grant Valentine, who also was a SUNY trustee, by the way. He's a grand worthy patron Terry Coxham is a grand associate conductor. So, madam speaker, Prince Hall has a long history in the state of New York, not just through its Masonic and Eastern Star orders, but in many ways through many AME Zion churches. So if you would please welcome these members from all over the state of New York to our chambers. They've been here today on an advocacy mission, strong people in their community, and they're bringing the words from the folks that they serve. So if you would please welcome them to our floor and offer them the cordialities of our house.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Of course. On behalf of miss Peoples Stokes, mister Taylor, members O'Farrow, Walker, Alvarez, Pretlow, Barros, De La Santos. We welcome our esteemed guest and the speaker. We welcome you to the Assembly Chamber, grandmaster, grandmachen, all of our esteemed guests from Prince Hall Masons. We extend to you the privileges of the floor and hope you enjoy our proceedings. It's always wonderful to see you every year when you come here. It's very distinguished, very honorable to see you when you visit. So we thank you so very much for joining us and continue the great work and advocacy you do in each of our communities. Thank you so very much. Page 10, calendar number 37. Clerk will read.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero one two a, calendar 37, miss Barrett. An act to amend the public authorities law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Barrett.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is intended to provide a comprehensive and ongoing approach to EV, electric vehicle fast charging station implementation planning.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Gray.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I certainly will.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The sponsor yield.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Thank you, miss Barrett. So, first I just want to discuss a little bit of the history of this bill. It has some legislative history to it. Can you explain how many or please say how many times has this bill been introduced? Please

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I'm sorry, Gray, I'm losing some of your How many times has this bill what? Been introduced. It's been introduced. Okay. Past three years.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. And it's passed in each time the last three years?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: It's passed our house the last three years.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. And last I believe in 2024, the governor vetoed the bill. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Are there any changes between 2024 and this version of the bill? Yes. Okay. Could you explain those, please?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: As soon as I can find that piece of paper, yes. It's been amended to extend the time that the working group has to complete the study from six months, which was what it originally was, to twenty four months. And we've added language that the plan will incorporate the findings from the fast charger, highway, and major freight corridors needs evaluation, which was included in the budget in 2024. To prevent duplicative work, we've made sure that that was integrated in, incorporated in.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay, and does that respond to the governor's or the executive's concern that in the veto message?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Yeah, the governor included this with a bunch of other bills that she vetoed because she saw them as study bills. And this is actually not a study bill, but it was included in that. So we're hoping that we can make her see its individuality and why why it actually should be made into law.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. Does so does NYSERDA need legislative direction or legislative bill in order to commission this plan?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I'm sorry, does NYSERDA what?

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Require some sort of legislative action in order to commission this type of plan and implementation?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I mean the idea behind this bill is really to create one statewide comprehensive approach to using resources not to duplicating programs. I mean this is something we see a lot in state government where there are silos and each one thinks they have the great idea and they start a program. And what we have for example so far, the EV make ready program which utilities offer, NYSERDA has Charge Ready two point zero. NYPA has evolved New York. So, the idea is to have one approach, one single statewide

[Chantel Jackson, Member of Assembly (79th District), Chair, Legislative Women’s Caucus]: effort

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: provide a comprehensive approach to how we're going to do this kind of fast charging because really that's the type of charging that has been the most effective for people with electric vehicles.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So will this preempt NYPA then? New York Power Authority?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: No. The idea is to to really look at what we're currently doing, what's a better way to do it, and put it all under one program.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. So this this the objective of this is to eliminate all those others and put it under NYSERDA's To roof, if you will. Okay.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Yeah. The idea is to create a working group that will create the plant. It's not necessarily we're not telling them they have to eliminate the others. What we're saying is come together.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So, working group is a study then, so to speak.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: No, it's really more, it's a, I mean the idea is we know we need this. We need to be working in a more unified way to achieve this and let's have a working group guide the best way to do it.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay, so just one more, so does NYSERDA need a legislative mandate to do that or can they, they have broad authority already. Can they do that on their own?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: So if NYSERDA wanted to do this on their own, they certainly could. But in order to create a working group, we do need legislation.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. So just a quick diversion, if you will, because there's a lot of different efforts out there for advanced nuclear technology. There's a NYPA effort, there's a PSC effort, and there's a NYSERDA effort. Do we anticipate doing the same? I mean, for consistency, looking at, you know, if this legislation is valid, then certainly legislation addressing that issue should be valid.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So there's many different lines of effort for so all I'm trying to do is draw a conclusion that there's many different lines of effort for EV charging stations.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: You mean what I the ones I listed before? Yes. Yeah. No. No. The idea is to, you know, have one comprehensive plan that takes into consideration what

[John K. Mikulin, Member of Assembly (17th District)]: Yeah.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: What's going well, what's not going well, where's a better home for

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: this Right.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: All of those things.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So what I'm doing is I'm looking ahead now to something another like advanced nuclear technology. There's a lot of different lines This of effort

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: is about this. It's not about future Okay.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So do we so the EV market, there's probably fewer than 10% of the vehicles that are sold in New York State are zero emission vehicles right now. Is that would that be correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I'm that's not really germane to this bill, this legislation.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Well, mean the question is how much more do we need to invest in. So we're asking rate payers to continue to fund surcharges for NYSERDA.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I'm sorry, what was your question?

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So the current market right now is about 10% of EVs or of new sales in EVs, and the majority of the market is hybrids that don't require charging stations. So the CLCPA requires, I think, 35% by 2026. That doesn't look like a realistic goal that we're going to meet. So do we need is there a need for more investment in EV charging stations?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: There is a need to make it more efficient and more comprehensive for New Yorkers who are choosing to have electric vehicles now or in the future to know how they're going to be able to charge most efficiently and level three which is the fastest way possible.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Have we identified a gap in service out there for charging stations? Do we know it? Is there a gap out there that we know of?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Yeah, there's I think people you know, lots of people have talked about the fact that you know, you don't have adequate, we don't have adequate fast charging if you're traveling from one end of the state to the other. If you're traveling to the North Country, I mean, I think there are gaps.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So, is that in some sort of document that is available that we can see what the need is out there or do we have any idea or just anecdotal?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: The idea of creating a working group is to be able to sort of collect that data and you know and get it right.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Somewhat of a study then, correct? What's that? It's somewhat of a study then, right? It's collecting data and pushing it together.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: So, you understand that NYSERDA is off budget, so we can't really do NYSERDA policy in the budget, but this is what's the only way to do them.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Right. And I question whether we need to even be doing this legislation because they have broad authority they can do it on their own without us actually telling them.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: No. But, you know, we have a lot of good ideas here in the legislature and we like to make sure that our good ideas are heard. So that's why we do this.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: That sounds good. I appreciate that. So do so there's charging stations out there right now. I would contend that there's lack of advertising for them because you don't know where they are. I mean, maybe if you drive an EV, you may know where they are. But in general public, which is probably what's maybe halting them from buying the electric vehicles. But do we know what the utilization is on the charging stations that are deployed right now?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: What?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Yeah. Not no. But I don't think that's relevant either.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Well, I mean, if we're so we're asking rate payers to consistently

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Well, as you know, NYSERDA is funded by a a number of things, regi funds as well as ratepayers and other funds.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: They are primarily funded through ratepayers and we are consistently asking ratepayers to fund different projects like this And we so we don't know what the current utilization is out there, but we're asking them. And it's really at a time when consumers are feeling the burden of their energy bills. We should be looking at reducing those surcharges, not finding a way to spend the money perhaps?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Well, for the ratepayers that actually have electric vehicles and are looking to figure out how to make sure they can get to their loved ones and to their work and to their schools and anywhere else that they're trying to go, this is important information for them to be able to have.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Well, I understand it's important, but again, we don't have any data that that quantifies that.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I'm sorry, go ahead.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: It's important and that's anecdotal, but we don't have any data that quantifies that. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: There is data about how know, how much, many people are using EV chargers. There is data and part of the goal of this is to make our spending more efficient because it will we'll look at this whole phenomenon and see where the needs are, what the use is, how we need to improve it. So the goal is to help rate payers and bring down those costs.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Well, we're consistently looking for more ways to spend our surcharges, right? Do we know That's your interpretation. You've already identified Power Authority is doing EV charging stations. NYSERDA is doing charging stations. Utility companies are doing charging stations. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: There are, yes, there are some programs that each of them are doing. There are some private ones as well.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Yeah, so how does that, how does this just fit into the whole totality of the picture?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I think I explained that at the beginning. The idea is to have one comprehensive plan and for this working group that we're establishing with this legislation to be able to look at all of those things and figure out a more efficient effective way of doing fast charging.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. But it has no it has no impact on the utilities. Is that correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: On the what?

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: The utilities who are building out charging stations.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: There going to be two members of the working group that are appointed by the utilities. That will be an impact on them coming up with people to serve on this.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay, Thank you very much.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Thank you.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Yep. Madam speaker, on the bill?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: So we've been here before with this bill. It's passed. It's been vetoed. It's back again today. I I still think we lack clear answers as to what's really changed and, you know, how this is all going to be implemented in terms of the utilization that we already are experiencing out of there. We heard a lot of anecdotal information, but we didn't hear anything that's really quantitative to this. And I would say at this point in time when ratepayers are being heavily burdened by the utility cost, whether it is their supply charge, whether it is their delivery charge, as well as the escalating prices as a supply and delivery goes up, so do the taxes and so do the surcharges. So we are continuing to burden the taxpayer, the ratepayers with extra charges and these surcharges. I think it's a time that we take a step back and we evaluate these surcharges and we look at ways to reduce the surcharges and look at a way to eliminate some of these surcharges and some of these programs that we constantly are trying to drive the cost up on this. So, madam speaker, I have voted no I voted yes on this bill before. Given the circumstances, the climate right now with the utility and the ratepayers, I would urge my colleagues to vote no.

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mr. Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Of course. That's former ranker.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Thank you, Ms. Barrett. And let me just say to, before we start out, I just want to say thank you. It was a privilege working with you on the energy committee. I appreciated our discussions in the energy committee on the floor. I know we won't have those discussions in the committee, but from time to time I expect we might have some here, but I do want to say thank you to you and your staff. I really appreciate the working relationship we had and I value that and I appreciate and look forward to continuing working with

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: you.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: You're very welcome.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: With that being said

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I knew that was coming.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Obviously, like you said, this is a planning bill, right?

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: I'm

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: sorry. This is bills about planning.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: This is, it's about a working group. We're creating a working group.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Right, to

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: A quite extensive working group with a lot of representation.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Yeah, and I'll get to that too. But it's implementation of charging plan. I think part of my concern, what we see is planning is good, but what we're seeing with these energy policies, whether it's EVs or other, things are being implemented before we do the plan. Let me go back to the time frame. You said this will from the time this passed and gets signed into law, it will be twenty four months for them to submit a plan, correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: That's yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: All right. So, right now, we have the advanced clean truck rule in effect that took effect We have I'm sorry. The advanced clean truck rule regulation that took effect. Hey, John. He's in my ear. We have the advanced clean truck rule that's in effect that took effect in 2025. We have the advanced clean car two rule, another regulation that took effect in 2025. We have the EV school bus mandate that's taking effect now. Wouldn't it be smarter to I mean, if we're talking about a comprehensive charging infrastructure plan, wouldn't it be smarter to delay some of these implementations of these plans versus and get the plan first before we put these costs on the people and infect the business community?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: You know this is I mean I don't think I necessarily agree with you. I mean this is something we obviously introduced a while ago. You know if it had been signed we would already be on our way with this, But it wasn't. And it's still a good idea and it's still something that we need to prepare for. So, you know, and we are integrating the work with those studies with the major freight corridors the findings from the fast charger highway. So that's going to be part of this. We aren't duplicating work that's done before.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: We

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: are doing those things.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Then maybe the I don't know if is it the position of your side of the aisle that no, we shouldn't delay the electric school bus mandate that school districts are screaming

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: It's not relevant to this.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: I'm just wondering because we're talking about electric charging infrastructure plan with the working group. Just didn't know because these things are already on the books, they're already taking effect.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Maybe it will be as this, I mean if we can get this working group going, then maybe they will look at how they can facilitate charging

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Fair in enough.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: A more efficient and a speedier manner for our school buses as well. But first we have to make this happen.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Right, let's talk about this working group. Who makes the appointments?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Well, there are a number of different appointments from different sources. Let's see if I find my notes here. There are 13 members. There will be one member representing each of the municipal organizations, NYSAC, NICOM and the Association of Towns. Two from environmental justice groups, two from environmental groups, two from public utilities, two from charging station developers, and five from the governor, four from the president of the senate, and four from the speaker of the assembly.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: So there's no minority appointments, correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Of course there can always be minorities. We're not saying what party these You people should

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: don't have to tell us. Know what party it is. Mean the speaker is a democrat, the governor is a democrat, the majority leader is a democrat, three. The governor gets a democrat, gets five appointments. The speaker gets a democrat, gets four appointments. And the majority leader is a democrat, gets four appointments.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: And what about NYSAC, NICOM, and Association of Towns? Mean those

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: But the appointments are

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: They're coming public utilities, those could

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: all be from, why couldn't maybe the speaker have one, three appointments and majority have three and give one to each of them in early years? Know we've talked about this.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Yeah, listen, I'm open to that. Let's get this bill moved and if that's the major flaw in this bill, we should fix it.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: All right, well that'd be good. What about if you

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: guys all vote against it, then there's got to

[Christopher S. Friend, Member of Assembly (124th District)]: be more to it. There's more to it for me.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Is there a consumer advocate on this? Does it have to be a consumer advocate in any way on this panel, correct?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Not specifically, but yeah, I mean not from a consumer advocacy group, but environmental justice groups, from environmental groups, and you know the again, NYSAC, NYCOM, and NIOT.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Given the fact that this effect in automobiles, and we were at the same hearing I was a little over a year ago, I think was maybe two years, with the trucking industry on the concerns that they're having about the act regulation, wouldn't it have been a wise idea or proper to have a representative from the trucking industry, a representative from the auto industry? Because they're dealing with the act regulation and advanced clean car tool regulation, or the EV school bus or school district talking about these, to have them part of that discussion too? Because they seem to be left out.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: I think that a lot of that was addressed with these prior findings, fast charger highway and major freight corridors needs evaluation. This is more the you know, regular vehicle, sort of everyday driver.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: And I know there's the utilities on here, but wouldn't it, given the NISO be a good person, good organization to have on this panel, given the fact that they are tasked with making sure the power stays on, the grid is secure? Because we continue to hear the grid reliability concerns from the NISO both short term and long term. Wouldn't it be good to have the NISO as a member of that board, that panel, that team?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Certainly could be, but that's not the way we drafted the bill. We're always happy to talk to NISO and have them at it.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: All right. So this working group, I mean I know it's a planning. So with planning, will they tasked with doing any type of cost benefit analysis to see if this is something that could how much this is going to cost to put discharging infrastructure in place? Is there any cost analysis that this group will be working on?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: That will be their decision. First, we have to constitute the group.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Okay. I guess I get the same same answer would be, I guess, if about the feasibility study, making sure that the grid can handle this charging infrastructure. Shouldn't we be doing that? Shouldn't that be part of the discussion

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: That that certainly they're could be part of it.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: What about fire suppression? You know, we see fires that happen with whether it's EVs or others, know, there's a lot of concern out there about electric school bus fires. Shouldn't that fire suppression, fire safety be part

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: of that discussion Certainly could be. Same answer. We don't have the working group

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: yet. I understand. I understand. But I'm just trying to get the context of what the scope of this working group is going to do because it's nice to have a working group. Mean, basically, it says charging infrastructure. I just didn't know what the scope. That's what I'm trying to get at with my questions. What about wear and tear on roads? We know electric vehicles are heavier, especially trucks, school buses, concerns about wear and tear on roads. Will that be part of that discussion, or is that not because that's more physical infrastructure?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Nope. That could certainly be part of it.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Okay. How about loss of tax revenue? Would that be part of this discussion? Because, you know, EVs don't pay. They get gas. They don't pay fuel taxes, and fuel taxes go to help improve our roads. They go some of that goes into dedicated fund. Would that be a part of this discussion at all?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: That would be up to them.

[Scott A. Gray, Member of Assembly (116th District)]: Okay. Alright.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: And then I will just one more question. I did this to you last year and you said you weren't going to answer because I knew the answer, but I'll ask anyway. Does this bill or this working group do anything to deal with when they're talking about EV infrastructure, which means EVs, about the sourcing of materials used to produce the battery that powers the electric vehicles? Will this working group have any say in that to make sure maybe the procurement is sourced with U. S.-made material to produce the batteries for the EVs which are going be charged to the electric charging stations which this bill tends to do on EV charging infrastructure? Is there anything on that to encourage sourcing as US made products and safe?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: It's I mean, among among the the things that the plan shall do are requirements for compliance with labor standards for the manufacture construction, installation and maintenance of fast charging stations including but not limited to Buy American provisions for component parts and manufacture of infrastructure related to charging stations and prevailing wage for construction installation maintenance of fast charging stations.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: So in Sounds like sounds like I like that by Americans. So will there be any assurances that the batteries that are produced to power the electric vehicle to ensure checking is done maybe through third party sources that these batteries, the equipment is not used and child labor is not being used to produce these batteries that are going to power these electric vehicles. Will that be part of the discussion of the working group or shouldn't it be?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: These are about the chargers, not I understand that. Not about the EV.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: I understand, but the working group has

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: to deal You with the whole know, like I said, they are open to coming up with their own parameters.

[Anna Kelles, Member of Assembly (125th District)]: All

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: right. Ms. Barrett, as always, thank you for your time. I appreciate it very, very much. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker, my colleagues. Thank you again to the sponsor. I appreciate our discussion. As always, always cordial. I certainly understand the intention behind the bill. I certainly understand where she's trying to go with this legislation. It's it's about putting a working group rather to put a plan together. But what I see unfortunately is everything we're doing in this state is implementing things before we plan. We're implementing things before we do a cost benefit analysis. We're implementing things before we do a feasibility study to see

[Michael A. Durso, Member of Assembly (9th District)]: if the grid can handle it.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: We are implementing things before we do like safety studies and analysis. Why aren't we looking at a little bit more of that? It all boils down to the CLCPA when they never did a cost benefit or technical feasibility analysis. That's what's going down pipeline. The electric school bus mandate, no cost benefit analysis, no feasibility study, no safety study, no ensuring procurement. It just seems like it's more let's get it done, let's be first. We don't need to be first. We need to be right. And that's what I'm concerned about. The twenty four month timeframe that I know this group will have to come together with to put in place. The fact of the matter is, my colleagues, the advanced clean truck rule is in effect right now via regulation. These trucking companies, mean, there's there's a there's a there's deficits are building up. Now the DEC delayed enforcement, but they did not delay implementation. So they're still building up these deficits. For every one ICE vehicle you for every four ICE vehicles for trucks, need one electric vehicle. So those deficits are accruing when the grid can't handle it, when the cost is there. Same thing for the advanced clean truck clean car. For every one ice or every or every two ice vehicles, you need one electric vehicle. They have to be this year, they're supposed to be at 35% of their sales are supposed to be electric. That' not something the industry can comply with there' significant fines. I mean I just think that' something we need to look at and I' talk a little bit more about that in the middle. Again the working group I we talk about this on the floor there' no minority appointments I don' understand I mean I think about back to the c l c p a there' a minority appointment for the senate and the assembly we had appointments on that committee I mean I think the c l c p a what came out of it and what has transpired since has been a failure, but at least we had representatives there who had common sense and understand the energy sector and energy industry. If they weren't there, it would have been much worse than what it already is. No consumer groups. So we should have minority appointments and I don't understand why we can't just add that. It just it's I think it sends a little bit more respect to hey, you should have an appointment on this, but we don't, that's fine. No consumer, no consumer advocacy groups. But even bigger than that too is why don't we have a representative from the trucking companies or the auto industry or the EV or school bus industry on this panel because these are the organizations that are getting crushed by these mandates that we have placed on them via regulation and via legislation. And the nice so which is tasked with providing the power of making sure the grid stays working, the heat stays on, the light stays on. They understand they have short term and long term reliability gaps that they've talked about, but they should be a part of this. And the nice was brought up these concerns from reliability short and long term. Recent white paper they came out with when they were talking about the cost and about the generation concerns, they cited declining generation and retirement of plants, meaning declining generation of natural gas power plants, increased fuel prices, pipeline constraints, and the rising need to meet the electrification demand which is part of the CLCPA. They talked about that. With that decline is the base load generation. I get that extra. Yeah, yeah, please. Yeah, I'm almost done though. I'm almost done. Thank you, madam speaker. I promise I'm almost done. But they said in that, now with that, this forced electrification and these other things, no new baseload generation is coming online, which is very, very concerning. And this is all part of this energy plan that's being advanced. And the nice thing is we need to look at repowering retired plants and putting new plants online, which is something we have called to do. Just to understand the reliability gaps that we're talking about and how significant and dangerous this is for the constituents we represent, our families and our businesses. To put it in perspective, right now, our total generating capacity in New York is 41 gigawatts. That's and one gigawatt is the equivalent of powering 750,000 homes. That 41 gigawatts, that includes everything wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, natural gas, and oil. To beat this electrification demand, the NISO said we need to build out triple to 120 gigawatts. I mean, that's a massive, massive build out that we are not ready to do, which is why we continue to say we need to pause and slow this thing down. The nice oil has also said out of that 20 out of that 120 gigawatts, 27 to 45 gigawatts needs to be dispatchable emission free resources. Wind and solar does not count. You can build as many solar farms and windmills as you want. It does not count because it is intermittent energy. We need reliable base load generation. Yes, nuclear has been part of the discussion. It needs to be part of the discussion. Quite frankly, if you want to compare nuclear to wind and solar, nuclear wins hand down. Why? It's reliable base load generation. It's dispatchable. And also, land use. You look at the amount of land being used for wind and solar versus nuclear. All you should do is look at Indian Point which was closed down two forty acres for 2,000 megawatts, whereas the climate action council plan calls for 60 gigawatts of solar and you need eight acres per megawatt, that's four and eighty thousand acres of land. We have upstate communities asking for nuclear technology in our districts. They're not screaming for wind and solar. But on that point, I think we need to look at this a little more clearly and how we're moving forward. I will say again, we're not planning is good, but we're implementing all this. When I talk about the advanced clean truck rule, is being impacted by this regulation and there was no charging infrastructure. We had the thruway commissioner at a hearing and he said, well, we're working on with the NISO and utilities. You think they would have done that before they invested $500,000,000 in rest stop upgrades? There's no heavy duty charging infrastructure for our trucks. The trucks are concerned. Trucking companies are concerned. And remind you, we have 300,000 New Yorkers working in the trucking industry in New York State. 96% of our goods are shipped via truck. And they compare diesel transportation versus an electric truck, you can go 1,800 miles to 2,000 miles on a full tank of diesel and then get off and fill up in twenty minutes and get back on the road. For an electric truck, the estimates are saying 200 miles, maybe up to 300 if you're lucky, but then you're going get off in maybe four hours to charge up. It's very, very, very concerning. The auto industry has said they are concerned about the advanced clean car. Because, again, this took effect in 2025, ladies and gentlemen. Advanced clean car, by 2026, they're supposed 35% of their sales are supposed to be electric. They can't meet that threshold and there are significant penalties. Yes, the enforcement is delayed, but the implementation is not. So, they're still accruing deficits. And I just think that's something that is concerning more and more to me. And when you talk about trucking costs, I mean, those trucking costs so what you're going do is you're going to drive the trucking industry out of New York State because they they have they have to be electric trucks, but they're going to ship with trucks from out of state and yes, you're still going to have diesel trucks coming through New York State and traveling further distances to pick up food and ship food and ship lumber for housing projects. We talk about affordable housing and affordable food. This will result in higher food prices and higher housing prices. And even a NYSERDA memo that just came out said delivery truck operations are gonna get increased 60%. How is that affordability? I hear this chamber talk about affordability all the time. I hear the governor talk about affordability all the time. You can't talk about affordability with these types of policies on your policy resume. The impact of the heavy duty trucks on our roads. The town highway superintendents did a study on the electric school bus mandate saying because a normal diesel is like 10 tons of racks, we're talking about 14 tons and 25 tons per axle, 25 in the rear. The cost estimates, ladies and gentlemen, when you when our local highway guys are up here talking about increased chips road, pro money, It's just a maintenance cost, we're talking about 20 to $50,000 per mile. In rehabilitation cost, you're talking about an additional $550,000. The same study, and this study came out of Cornell by the way, would decrease road life by 20% instead of ten years, eight years. This is another unfunded mandate, this package, this energy package, and it all has to do. So when you're talking about chips, we should be we've definitely advocating for more chips funding, and I think well above the 50,000,000 in our one house budget. $2.50 would be a better word. You know, the governor has talked about all the above approach. I see that over and over again. But and she said she didn't have anything to do with the CLCP. Well, cap and invest is hers. EV scuba mandate is hers. All electric buildings is hers. EV sales are hers. Advancing truck mandate regulation. Advancing car are hers. She owns that. We all own that. This chamber owns this. And the price of a residential electricity rate in 2019 was 17¢ a kilowatt hour. Today, it's over 25¢ a kilowatt hour or more than 50 nearly 50% higher than the national average. The study is coming out saying the cost of this whole plan is any over a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000 and could be as much as a half $1,000,000,000,000 according to the Empire Center. That's a lot of money. That's more than our whole budget we're talking about. Cost to convert your home over from natural gas to full electrification, three different studies saying 20 to $50,000 including the climate action council plan, the climate action council, and the consumer energy alliance said these nutties. What senior citizen, what disabled veteran can afford 20 to $50,000 to convert over to electrification from natural gas? And the memo that came out, can go the electric school bus mandate, my goodness, 8 to $15,000,000,000 in replacement cost. And that doesn't get into the charging infrastructure we're talking about, which is a part of this. Billions of dollars in charging infrastructure. Billions of dollars in the higher energy infrastructure improvements made. We had a press conference a couple of years ago. The Shenandoah school district superintendent was here and said it was gonna increase their cost to build the grid for for their project, $30,000,000. That would be borne by the local property tax payers and the local property tax payers alone. And with the new memo that came out, $4,000 now people that heat their homes with natural gas or oil or propane, dollars 2.23 a gallon increase for gas on top of what it is $2.23.2.41 for diesel increase above what it is. Utility costs increase by 40 up to 46% depending on utility and facility size. And again, to increase delivery truck cost operations by 60%. New Yorkers want relief now. They don't want to subsidize someone's EV. They don't want someone's electric heat pump. They don't want to subsidize windows. So they want relief now. So we've talked about plans. I know you've talked about plans. Yes the rebate which is part of the one house budget we called for that but that alone does not do the job. We should be suspending all taxes fees taxes fees surcharges assessments which in some cases can make up to 20% of your utility bill. We should take the $2,400,000,000 sitting in NYSERDA's account and rebate that back to consumers right now. They've already paid for it. Give them the direct relief now. If you talk to them, hey, they're going say give me the money back now. I don't want to subsidize more electrification. Unfortunately, we don't see that happening. We need more of that. And when we talk about grid reliability and natural gas and nuclear, the technology is not there yet. That's what they've said. We're not there yet, but it's going to take some time. So in the meantime, do you try to dismantle affordable or reliable infrastructure And natural gas is a reliable dispatchable baseload generation. And the nice said we need to repower our natural gas power plants and we have to build new ones. Well, natural gas has always been referred to as a bridge fuel, hasn't it? You do not tear down a bridge before you build a new one, but unfortunately, that's what this chamber is doing with the policies that are being advanced because the policies don't match the words, same with the governor. From my perspective, the policies being advanced are totally designed to dismantle the affordable, reliable, and natural gas infrastructure supply and delivery system totally designed to take away consumer choice and how you heat your home, cook your food, power your building in the vehicle you drive, It will jeopardize the reliability of the grid, leading to dangerous and deadly blackouts, and it will continue our nation leading out migration of more families, farmers, small businesses, and manufacturers leaving our state. I know we want to do this for the environment, but keep in mind, New York's point 4% of global emissions, point four. China's 30% has a thousand coal plants and building more each and every week. Do we really think they're going help us meet our clean green energy goals? I do not think so. In fact, they're expanding their coal generating capacity two years ago by 95 gigawatts, double our total generating capacity. And they got the control of the solar market, more than 90% of the solar market, and they got control over 90% of the rare earth materials. So, they're making money off this. So, they're not for green energy. They're for making money. And I guess I will say, we always talk about disadvantaged communities in this chamber. But what about the disadvantaged communities? Okay. That's fine. I won't need all of it. Thank you. What about the disadvantaged communities that are being impacted by the policies that we're putting? Yes, I will say it. Cobalt and lithium. Cobalt, 70% of the cobalt is extracted in the Democratic Republic Of Congo using child labor, well documented, some as young as six years old. These mines, they go in and hand mine it. These mines have collapsed on them, killed them, paralyzed them, lost limbs. It's happening. Lithium, the Lithium Triangle. There Argentina, Bolivia poisoning water rivers and streams over there. If we were poisoning water rivers and streams here, if kids were dying here, this snow would not be happening, but it's almost like, I'm not saying you don't care, of course you care. But it's almost like that as long as it's they're helping us meet our so called

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: It's Clinton, why you rise?

[Unidentified Member (female)]: Would the gentleman yield to a question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will Mr. Pommesano yield to a

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: question? Absolutely.

[Unidentified Member (female)]: Thank you so much, Mr. Pommesano.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you. You're taking a question from her? Okay, I'll wait. I'll be next. Thank you.

[Unidentified Member (female)]: I appreciate your passion. But over the many, many years that we have used fossil fuel that has come from places throughout South and other countries, Have there not been oil spills? Have there not been issues where villages have had their water befouled, their lives cut short by those kinds I of extractive

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: will not disagree. There have been environmental damage. Let me ask you a follow-up question if you don't mind. I know you don't like fracking wells. I know you don't like oil rigs. Do you see any children working on them?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Colleagues, we need to just remember to keep our comments confined to the proposal I was wrapping up the house, please.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Member of Assembly (132nd District)]: I will can wrap up my words right now. But based on what I said, if obviously, if the majority wanna ask me a question, I'd be happy to. But I was at the end. Based on what I said here today, my concerns, it's a plan, but we've implemented things without the plan and that's my concern. That's a concern of a number of us. The cost, the feasibility is not being addressed in these energy policies. I will continue to speak on it. We need to continue to speak out on it. We need to prioritize energy policy that prioritizes affordability, reliability, feasibility, safety, fuel diversity, and energy waste because New York families and business deserve it. For that reason, madam speaker, I'm gonna be voting no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Mister Bologna?

[Unidentified Member]: Okay. Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for just a few quick questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: But of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The sponsor yields. So much.

[Unidentified Member]: I will I just before I get started, I do wanna say, I appreciate my colleagues passion towards this issue. And I know, you know, sometimes it gets on to the greater whole whole of the energy issue, but I I do wanna thank mister Paul Palmisano because I I do agree with him in a lot of what he says. So I I wanna acknowledge and appreciate that. With that said though, questions are actually pertaining to section five of the Fast Charge New York Working Group specifically. And it's kind of getting a little bit further into the weeds of what my colleague was hitting on. Less so with the minority and majority appointments. But I noticed in here that it specifically points out that two members will be from environmental justice groups and then two members will also be representing statewide environmental groups. Only two representing public utilities. Is there any requirement that anyone is an electrical engineer, a municipal engineer on this working group?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: No. But, I mean, if you add up the numbers, there are still two positions that could be any one of those things.

[Unidentified Member]: I guess my question is more so, why is it in the text that we are singling out and talking about the environmental ramifications, which is a very worthy thing to discuss. But as far as the practicality is concerned, in terms of actually getting power from a source to a charging port, I would think that it would be really important to have people on this panel that that actually do that for, you know, their profession that have trained the certifications for that and like actually spell it out in in the text of the bill. Would you not agree?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Well, we have two positions from public utilities. If they wanted to select people with that expertise. That would certainly be up to them. And then there are two positions for charging station developers. At least one of which is based in New York. And again, if that was the focus that they felt that needed to be represented on the working group, then they could select that too. As well as all the other people making choices for nominating people for this.

[Unidentified Member]: I can I can appreciate the the wanting to give them the flexibility to offer their who they believe is, you know, serving their maybe their interests the best? But as far as it's you know, the text is concerned and as far as the actual implementation, I think we saw this a little bit with the Climate Action Council where, you know, there were a lot of appointees on that and some of the room some of the voices in the room may have gotten overshadowed. Maybe there weren't enough engineers on the council. And what ultimately led to a plan that was maybe unimplementable, and we saw that with a NYSERDA memo with how expensive it's going to be. So I guess I I guess there's really not a question here. I guess just going forward, I I would hope that you may be amenable or if if there's a chapter amendment to

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Are you

[Brian D. Manktelow, Member of Assembly (130th District)]: on the

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: bill now, sir?

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah. Yeah. I guess I'm on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: I'm the bill.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you very much. Thank you, miss Barrett. I appreciate your time. On the bill, I I guess, hold going forward, I would hope that there would be a little bit more specificity in terms of what we're looking for in the actual implementation. Because, you know, great. You can have all the car charging ports all across the state you want. But if you go to plug in your car and there's no juice coming to the port, it doesn't really do anyone any good. So until we actually figure out our actual electrical infrastructure, you know, issues within New York State, we're not gonna really be in a better place, you know, five, ten, twenty years from now than we are right now. So, again, just going forward, I think we need to really focus on on the engineering aspects and the actual implementation and practicality of some of the things that we're doing. And not just hope on a whim that we're putting these people on these councils. Actually, it out in the text of the bills that we want engineers and people that actually know what they're doing to implement these these laws that we're passing. So thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Miss Biepelstokes.

[Unidentified Member]: I was out. Thank

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: you, madam speaker. I wanted to speak on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill, ma'am.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: I I realized that we live in a time when our environment is is literally going wacky. It was 60 degrees in Buffalo the other day, and then the very next day, it was 22. That's not normal. And if we don't think that that has some impact on what we're putting into the air on a regular basis, then we haven't really been doing the right research. And so I wanna appreciate the sponsor of this legislation even though I don't see how Nassorta makes this happen anytime with any speed, but I do think they should be looking at figuring out how do we get that done. There are still some many issues that we have to look into to make sure that there is grid capability that we have the ability to keep creating sustainable energy? I think we do. I mean, quite honestly, we are a country of people who have always figured a way to move to the next generation with the next product that we use. And, unfortunately, many times what we've used are those minerals and resources that come from Africa. It's not anything new. I mean, even though we hear every year when we get on this topic from our colleague, but resources have always been taken from Africa. And if the people have always been abused, if it was Africans using the resources to be sold to somebody, people wouldn't be abused. But in fact, it's colonizers. Again, using the resources and abusing people to for their profit, not for the people's profit who who they're taking this product from. And so I wish, you know, that we would, as Americans, would get to the point where we understand that, yes, we need to protect our environment, but we also need to be protecting the lives of people who live in other places where they have access to resources that we want. And in many cases, we've taken, including, quite frankly, people. My ancestors were taken from Africa for free to work, yet we're still here. So it in it burns my spirit to keep hearing something about children being abused in Africa when that's the history of America. It's the hip history of Europe. It's the history of France. It's the history of UK. So if we wanna talk about history, let's talk about all of it, not about the ones that's conveniently meets your argument because you oppose an opportunity for us to try and electrify our society. So I again wanna congratulate miss Barrett for her work on this. She's she's done a lot of work on this issue, not just to her committee on this specific issue, but all of it. And I think we have to somehow begin working to appreciate that. And for that reason, I look forward to having the opportunity to yet again vote yes in support of this piece of legislation.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you very much. So I apologize in advance if any of these questions are repetitive. I just for my own sake, just wanna have a little bit of clarity on just a couple of things. Back in 2024, the governor vetoed a version of this bill. What was the reason for the veto on that? It was part of a large number of bills that she vetoed under the umbrella of these

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: are study bills, we don't do study bills in the budget. However, this is a bill about NYSERDA, which is not we don't do study bills, we should do them in the budget. We can't do this bill in the budget because it's NYSERDA and NYSERDA is not on budget.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay, I heard you say that before. I just wanted to have that clear for myself. Because I noticed when I looked at your memorandum of support for this bill, it stated that under fiscal implications for state and local governments, it said none. So is is it your position I just wanna clarify. Is it your position that this bill would not cost any money to set this up? Because it says none.

[Nily Rozic, Member of Assembly (25th District)]: Not for state and local governments.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: Not for the state and local governments, no. They just would participate. I'm sorry? They would just participate. They would have a member on the you know, through the three different organizations. They would be involved. I mean this is you know we're a home rule state, we want to include our local governments and that's definitely part of the plan here.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay, okay. So this is like financially speaking this is a neutral proposition to create this working group then? Sorry? This is a financially neutral proposition to Yes. Create this working Okay, thank you. And between the 2024 bill that was vetoed and the bill that we're taking up today, that there's been no changes in the bill as far as the as far as I know that there have been some changes, but specifically with regard to the governor's concerns as expressed that it was part of that big blank No,

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: just expanding the time and making sure that we are integrating and not replicating the work that was done on those Okay. Fast charger highway and major freight corridors needs assessment.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay, so I mean would it be your position that perhaps the governor, the 2nd Floor misapprehended what the true fiscal impact, you know of this was and that the reason for the veto saying that it was going to be you know so costly really is not it wasn't

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: accurate. I'm sorry to say I don't even think it got that much scrutiny to be honest.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay, all right, fair enough. So I noticed that in my briefing memo it says that one of the opponents to the bill is the National Right to Work Committee. That too from what I understand was kind of like a blanket opposition memo to But a whole bunch of from what I can understand, the reason for the opposition is that there's no PLA agreement in place for charging station installation so that organization opposes this bill, which I understand is just a working group. But I wanted to give you an opportunity to address the opposition that the national right to work committee expressed for the bill. This is from 2025. I don't have an updated position from this year.

[Didi Barrett, Member of Assembly (106th District)]: So, yeah, I mean I wasn't particularly familiar with that, but it's something that could be addressed in the plan. That's the idea of putting together this diverse working group to allow best practices to emerge. And that's the goal here.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Okay. Okay. And I think that the issue of no minority appointments has already been, you know, addressed. So I think that those are all the questions that I had. And Madam Speaker, just very briefly on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: So as the sponsor and I both I think drive the same car, we're dealing with the issue of finding charging stations, you know, a lot, a lot. And certainly it's not easy. Look, there's a lot of things in the CLCPA that I think are wrong, are misguided, need to get rolled back, need to get improved, etcetera. I'm not going to talk about those things right now because it, but that's how I obviously feel about it. However, I'm also a pragmatist and I've supported this bill in the past because I think that regardless of how we feel overall about the direction that New York State is going in terms of energy, I think that this is a working group to plan what the needs are going to be. So I will, you know, I don't like the fact that there are no minority appointments. That's not going to be enough of a reason for me to vote no on this bill. And, you know, I think that it sounds like the the governor's veto, the opposition that I've I understand is really to me not doesn't really move the needle for me in terms of not supporting the bill. So I think we need to plan. I think we need to at least convene a working group to try to plan. Is it does it feel a little bit like we're building the plane as we're flying it? Yeah, it does. And is that great? No. But we have to start somewhere and I feel like this bill is a good place to start. So I'll continue to support it. I'll be in the affirmative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Mister Blumenkrantz?

[Jake Blumencranz, Member of Assembly (15th District)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think I'm just gonna go on the bill on this one.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On the bill.

[Jake Blumencranz, Member of Assembly (15th District)]: So I hear and understand many of the concerns that my colleagues have when it comes to the energy mandates and some of the issues we have faced in the past and are still facing. But as a Nassau County resident, as a resident who has driven electric vehicle for some time before too, we have real problem on Long Island. We have 80,000, almost 90,000 more electric vehicles on the road this year than we've had in the past. We have the largest number of electric vehicles of almost any other county, and we have one of the lowest rates of charging stations and opportunities to charge, especially DC chargers, almost anywhere else in the state. There needs to be some equity in where the funding is going when it comes to building out charging infrastructure. My community, my constituents, they're upset that they, you know, they bought an electric vehicle, yet they haven't been met with the infrastructure changes that have been expected in the past. I get and I I don't appreciate many of the mandates in the CLCPA, but I do get that we are in the reality of a world in which electric vehicles are a part of our auto economy and our residents deserve to have the infrastructure that goes with that reality. So with that said, I I will be supportive because I do believe that we do need to start planning for a future where we are having an equitable amount of chargers in communities that are increasingly reliant on electric vehicles. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Member of Assembly (112th District), Minority Conference Floor Leader]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will generally speaking be in the negative on this particular piece of legislation. But as we could tell from debate, there will be a variety of votes. Members wish to vote in the affirmative, now would be the time to do so at your seat. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be some that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats. Thank you, ma'am.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, one zero seven. Noes, 36.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: Speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes, Assembly Majority Leader]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 10AM, Thursday, March 19. Tomorrow being a session day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker Pro Tempore)]: On miss Pupil Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.