New York Assembly Bill A01104

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/25
• Refer: 1/9/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Makes provisions regarding environmental benefit projects in lieu of civil penalties including establishing conditions for their acceptance and criteria for such projects; authorizes the attorney general to review and approve the settlement or administrative order.

Summary

This bill would add a new section to the Environmental Conservation Law governing when the Department of Environmental Conservation may accept an “environmental benefit project” in lieu of full civil penalties in an enforcement settlement or administrative order. It defines key terms such as the economic benefit of noncompliance, the gravity component of a penalty, and environmental benefit projects, and it limits the use of such projects to cases where the violator has no history of significant or repeated noncompliance, did not act intentionally or recklessly, did not cause a threat to public health or grave environmental harm, and promptly corrects the violation in good faith. The bill also sets detailed standards for the projects themselves. Eligible projects must provide a real environmental benefit beyond ordinary compliance, cannot be activities already required by law or likely to occur anyway, and must include a payable penalty component that recovers the economic benefit of noncompliance and part of the gravity penalty. The bill requires enforceable schedules, periodic reporting, public notice, and approval by the attorney general. It also bars the use of projects for administrative costs, revenue generation, unrelated local-government benefits, research donations, studies without implementation, third-party performance unless specifically required, and public education projects.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would constrain DEC enforcement discretion by creating statutory conditions for substituting environmental benefit projects for some civil penalties and by requiring attorney general review and approval of such settlements or orders. It would affect regulated entities subject to environmental enforcement, the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Attorney General’s office, while also shaping how penalty calculations, settlement terms, notice, and monitoring are handled under the Environmental Conservation Law.

Sentiment

The available context suggests a generally supportive or reform-oriented posture toward the bill, as reflected in its detailed effort to preserve deterrence while allowing limited use of environmentally beneficial settlements. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or recorded floor debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure indicates an intent to tighten standards rather than expand leniency, which may appeal to environmental enforcement advocates.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of DEC’s settlement flexibility and whether environmental benefit projects should be allowed to offset penalties at all, or only under narrow circumstances. Environmental advocates may support the bill’s strict safeguards, while regulated industries may view the requirements as limiting negotiated resolutions and increasing compliance and reporting burdens. The attorney general approval requirement and public notice provisions may also be debated as adding oversight and transparency, but potentially slowing settlements.