[ THEME MUSIC ] >> WELCOME TO THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW."

I'M SHANTEL DESTRA.

DURING THE MOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, NEW YORK STATE LAWMAKERS PASSED A BILL MEANT TO CRACK DOWN ON SURVEILLANCE PRICING IN THE STATE.

THIS IS WHEN COMPANIES USE A CUSTOMER'S PERSONAL DATA, INCLUDING SHOPPING HABITS, HISTORY, AND LOCATION, TO ADJUST PRICES ON GOODS AND SERVICES SPECIFIC TO THE CONSUMER.

THE PRACTICE HAS SPARKED MAJOR CONTROVERSY BOTH NATIONALLY AND IN THE STATE.

LAWMAKERS AND CONSUMER ADVOCATES ARGUE THAT THE PRACTICE IS PREDATORY AND CAUSES CONSUMERS TO PAY SUBSTANTIALLY MORE WHEN SHOPPING.

WHILE THE BILL HAS YET TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOVERNOR KATHIE HOCHUL, LAWMAKERS AND ADVOCATES ARE THE OPTIMISTIC THAT NEW YORK WILL BECOME THE THIRD STATE IN THE NATION TO CRACK DOWN ON THE PRACTICE.

OUR ELISE KLINE HAS MORE ON THIS ISSUE IN THIS NEXT STORY.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> AN ALGORITHM CAN DECIDE WHAT CONTENT APPEARS ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SOCIAL MEDIA FEED BASED ON TRACKING A PERSON'S DATA VIA CODE PROCESSING.

THIS PRACTICE CAN ALSO BE USED FOR PERSONALIZED PRICING.

IT'S CALLED SURVEILLANCE PRICING, THE PRACTICE OF USING CONSUMER DATA, SUCH AS LOCATION, BROWSING HISTORY, PURCHASE FREQUENCY, AND EVEN DEVICE BATTERY LIFE, TO SET INDIVIDUALIZED PRICES.

NEW YORK STATE LAWMAKERS WANT TO BAN THIS PRACTICE.

>> IT OPENS IT UP TO ALL KINDS OF DISCRIMINATION AND UNFAIRNESS AND JUST MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY'RE GETTING A FAIR PRICE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO REIN IN WITH THIS BILL.

>> DURING THE MOST RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, STATE LAWMAKERS PASSED A BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT COMPANIES FROM PRACTICING SURVEILLANCE PRICING TO SET OR ADJUST THE PRICE OF GOODS AND SERVICES.

IF SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE POLICY WOULD MAKE NEW YORK THE THIRD STATE IN THE NATION TO BAN THIS PRACTICE.

THE BILL ALSO REGULATES CERTAIN DYNAMIC PRICING SYSTEMS, ESTABLISHES DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PRICING PRACTICES AND CREATES ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS WHERE COMPANIES CAN FACE UP TO $20,000 IN FINES FOR VIOLATIONS.

STATE LAWMAKERS SAY THE IMPACT OF THIS BILL WILL BE SIGNIFICANT FOR CONSUMERS.

>> SURVEILLANCE PRICING IS REALLY A TOOL FOR FINANCIAL EXTRACTION, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE FACE IN THE ECONOMY, AND THE BAN ON SURVEILLANCE PRICING IS REALLY ABOUT GIVING POWER BACK TO THE CONSUMER.

>> I DO THINK COSTS NEED TO BE EQUAL FOR EVERYONE.

AND THAT IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME THAT OUR DATA IS BEING USED AGAINST US OR ESSENTIALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR DATA.

THAT'S A CONCERN.

>> STATE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS WHO SUPPORT THE BILL SAY THIS BAN IS ABOUT EASING FINANCIAL BURDENS ON NEW YORKERS AND CRACKING DOWN ON UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES.

THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALSO A SUPPORTER OF THE BILL, SAID AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE, THIS PRACTICE IS PREDATORY AND MUST BE PREVENTED FROM CAUSING FAMILIES FURTHER HARM.

>> WE CANNOT ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO SQUEEZE OUR FAMILIES FOR EVERY LAST PENNY.

WE ARE SEEING ONLINE RETAILERS THAT CHARGE FIRST-TIME PARENTS MORE FOR BABY PRODUCTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE RETAILERS KNOW THAT THE NEW PARENTS ARE LIKELY TO PAY MORE.

WE ARE SEEING SENIORS GETTING UPCHARGED WHILE ORDERING GROCERIES ON THE SAME DAY THAT THEY RECEIVE THEIR BENEFITS.

THIS ONLINE PRICING MODEL HITS HARDEST WHERE IT HURTS MOST, FOOD, MEDICINE, DIAPERS AND OTHER ESSENTIALS.

>> FOR MANY CONSUMERS, THEIR MAIN CONCERNS SEEM TO BE INCREASED PRICES AND DATA PRIVACY VIOLATIONS.

>> FOR CONSUMERS ACTUALLY GETTING RIPPED OFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE, TAKING THEIR INFORMATION, IT'S LIKE TAKING SOMEONE'S IDENTITY.

>> IT'S NOT SOMETHING I SIGNED UP TO PARTICIPATE IN AND IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A MODERN WAY IN THE MODERN WORLD TO A DEGREE, YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE ONLINE, BUT I DIDN'T ASK TO BE SURVEILED THAT WAY.

SO THAT'S REALLY CONCERNING.

>> OTHER CONSUMERS SAY WHILE THEY UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES INDIVIDUALIZED PRICING CAN MEAN INDIVIDUALIZED DISCOUNTS, THEY STILL HAVE CONCERNS.

>> I'M A FREE MARKET GUY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARILY A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WHEN IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL LIKE, AS A CONSUMER, I'M PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK VERSUS WHAT'S ON THE OTHER END OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, PERHAPS IF I PLAY THE GAME, I COULD SAVE A COUPLE BUCKS, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A GAME I'M LOOKING TO PLAY AND I JUST KIND OF FEEL LIKE I'M GOING TO BE ON THE LOSING END OF IT.

>> CONSUMER AND ALBANY RESIDENT SETH HULBERT SAYS HE WORRIES THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF BENEFITING CONSUMERS.

>> I THINK IT'S JUST AN EXCUSE TO DRIVE UP PRICES AND MAKE MORE MONEY.

I REALLY THINK IT WILL JUST GET WORSE.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY WORRIES ME.

>> HULBERT SAYS HE SUPPORTS A BAN OF THIS PRACTICE.

>> I THINK IT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE BANNED IN NEW YORK, COUNTRYWIDE IF WE COULD.

>> OTHER CONSUMERS ALSO SAY THEY SUPPORT STATE LAWMAKERS BANNING THIS PRACTICE.

>> IT'S PROTECTIVE OF CONSTITUENTS AND CONSUMERS AND IF THE GOVERNMENT IS FOR ANYTHING, THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE FOR.

>> BIG RETAIL, TECH, RIDESHARE, TRAVEL AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS NATIONWIDE HAVE FACED INCREASED SCRUTINY ON THIS ISSUE.

A RECENTLY FILED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK PUSHES BACK AGAINST SURVEILLANCE PRICING.

THE LAWSUIT, FILED BY NEW YORK RESIDENT ANDREW PHILLIPS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND CLASS MEMBERS, ALLEGES THE AIRLINE COMPANY JETBLUE ENGAGED IN SURVEILLANCE PRACTICES BY USING CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL DATA TO SET TICKET PRICES.

THE LAWSUIT HIGHLIGHTS AN EXAMPLE WHERE ONE CUSTOMER CLAIMED ON SOCIAL MEDIA THEIR TICKET PRICE INCREASED BY $230 IN ONE DAY.

JETBLUE HAS SINCE DELETED THEIR RESPONSE ON X. BLAKE HUNTER YAGMAN, AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CASE AND A DATA PRIVACY LAWYER FOR NEARLY A DECADE, SAYS WHEN HE ANALYZED THE BACK-END CODE OF JETBLUE'S WEBSITE, HE FOUND CONCERNS.

>> I REALIZED THEY'RE NOT JUST ANALYZING THE AMOUNT OF SESSIONS THAT YOU'VE BEEN ON THEIR WEBSITE LOOKING FOR A PARTICULAR FLIGHT, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE BEHAVIORAL ANALYTICS, LIKE WHAT THEY CALL LIKE AN EMPATHY CATEGORY AND MAKING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT YOUR PSYCHOLOGY AND WHAT YOUR ELASTICITY WOULD BE FOR BUYING A PRODUCT.

THERE'S ALSO CONCLUSIONS THAT IT WAS MAKING ABOUT HOW MUCH THAT IT COULD CHARGE YOU BEYOND THE NORMAL PRICE BASED OFF YOUR IP ADDRESS AND THOSE CONCLUSIONS THAT IT WAS MAKING IN TERMS OF BEHAVIORAL ANALYTICS.

>> THE LAWSUIT ALSO ALLEGES JETBLUE SHARES CAN CUSTOMERS' DATA WITH A COMPANY CALLED PROS HOLDINGS, WHICH USES AN ALGORITHM TO SET PRICING.

A SPOKESPERSON FROM JETBLUE SAID IN A STATEMENT SENT TO WMHT THAT JETBLUE DOES NOT USE PERSONAL INFORMATION OR WEB BROWSING HISTORY TO SET INDIVIDUAL PRICING AND THE HIGHLIGHTED ISSUE ON SOCIAL MEDIA WAS SIMPLY A MISTAKE FROM A CUSTOMER SERVICE CREW MEMBER.

IN AN INTERNAL NOTE, OBTAINED BY WMHT, THE CEO OF JETBLUE CONVEYED THE SAME MESSAGE TO CREW MEMBERS, EXPLAINING FARES CHANGE BASED ON INVENTORY CHANGES.

THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE HAS ALSO GOTTEN THE ATTENTION IT OF FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES.

IN 2024, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ISSUED ORDERS TO SEVERAL COMPANIES, INCLUDING PROS, SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT SURVEILLANCE PRICING.

WMHT REACHED OUT TO PROS FOR A COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE, BUT THEY DID NOT RESPOND, DESPITE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS.

LAST YEAR, THE FTC RELEASED AN INTERIM REPORT SHOWING FINDINGS THAT RETAILERS FREQUENTLY USE CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL INFORMATION TO SET TAILORED PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES.

SOME STATE LAWMAKERS, WHO SUPPORT THE BILL, ARE HOPING THAT IF THIS BILL IS SIGNED, IT WILL INFLUENCE OTHER STATES AND POTENTIALLY NATIONAL POLICY.

>> ONCE WE GET A GOOD PLACE HERE AND HOPEFULLY HAVE A BILL SIGNED, A LOT OF STATES LOOK TO NEW YORK.

A LOT OF STATES LOOK TO THESE BIGGER POPULATION CENTERS, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO CONSUMER PROTECTION.

WE'RE OFTEN AT THE FOREGROUND, NOT THE BACKGROUND.

>> HOWEVER, THE BILL WASN'T MET WITHOUT CHALLENGES.

STATE LAWMAKERS ACROSS THE AISLE AS WELL AS BUSINESS GROUPS OPPOSED IT.

>> PENALTIES FOR $5,000 TO UP TO EVEN $20,000.

THERE WERE VERY SIGNIFICANT PENALTIES AND MY CONCERN IS IN THESE SITUATIONS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU FIND THESE REALLY HUGE CONGLOMERATE COMPANIES, THAT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO PASS IT OFF TO THE CONSUMER.

>> HEATHER MULLIGAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF NEW YORK STATE, SAYS THEY DON'T SUPPORT THE BILL BECAUSE THEY FEEL IT WILL END UP HURTING CONSUMERS VIA INDIVIDUALIZED DISCOUNTS.

>> WE DON'T OPPOSE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM OF LEGISLATION THAT WILL PROHIBIT RAISING PRICES FOR SELECT INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BILL DOES.

WHAT THE BILL DOES IS IT SAYS IF I AM SHOPPING ON AN INTERNET SITE AND I PUT AN ITEM IN MY CART AND I DECIDE TO CLICK OFF MY SCREEN OR LOOK ELSEWHERE, AND THERE'S A MECHANISM WHERE THE SITE THEN OFFERS ME A DISCOUNT TO TRY AND ENCOURAGE ME TO, BASED ON MY INTEREST, TO PURCHASE THE ITEM, THIS WOULD PROHIBIT THAT.

>> OTHER COMPANIES, SUCH AS UBER AND INSTACART, WHO HAVE FACED CRITICISM AROUND THE ISSUE, ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THE BILL, ACCORDING TO STATEMENTS PROVIDED BY SPOKESPEOPLE.

AMAZON, WHO HAS ALSO FACED CRITICISM AROUND THIS ISSUE, CLAIMS IN A STATEMENT SENT TO WMHT THAT THE COMPANY DOES NOT USE CUSTOMERS' PERSONAL DATA TO SET INDIVIDUALIZED PRICES.

STATE LEGISLATIVE SPONSORS OF THE BILL ARGUE DISCOUNTS WON'T BE IMPACTED, ADDING THERE ARE SPECIFIC CARVEOUTS IN THE BILL LANGUAGE FOR CUSTOM DISCOUNTS SUCH AS LOYALTY, REWARDS, MEMBERSHIP, AND CLASS-BASED DISCOUNT PROGRAMS.

>> WE DID A LOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN OFFER THE DISCOUNTS THAT THEY WANT TO OFFER, ACCEPT THESE PARTICULAR KINDS.

>> THIS BILL DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE CONSUMERS' ABILITY TO HAVE DISCOUNTS OR THE BUSINESS' ABILITY, THE CORPORATION'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE DISCOUNTS.

WE'VE MADE VERY PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS HERE.

>> INDIVIDUALIZED DISCOUNTS OR TARGETED PROMOTIONS BASED ON THE USE OF PERSONAL DATA ARE ALSO WIDELY UNPOPULAR AMONG CONSUMERS NATIONWIDE.

ACCORDING TO A 2025 CONSUMER REPORT SURVEY, 76% OF SHOPPERS OPPOSE THE PRACTICE OF USING PERSONAL DATA AND INFORMATION TO SET DISCOUNTS.

GRACE GEDYE, A SENIOR POLICY ANALYST AT "CONSUMER REPORTS," STRESSES ALL THE BILL DOES WITH DISCOUNTS IS PUT CRITERIA AND GUARDRAILS AROUND THE USE OF PERSONAL DATA.

>> SO SOME OF THE CRITERIA HAVE TO DO WITH DISCLOSING THE DISCOUNT OR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DISCOUNTS, JUST LIKE SOME BASIC TRANSPARENCY.

ANOTHER HAS TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, IF A COMPANY WANTS TO USE YOUR SHOPPING HISTORY TO INFORM A DISCOUNT, IT CAN COMBINE THAT DATA WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER DATA ABOUT YOU AND USE IT AS PART OF A BIG INVASIVE PROFILE OF YOU.

IT JUST HAS TO USE YOUR SHOPPING DATA.

>> ADVOCATE GROUPS LIKE AARP SAY THEY WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED THE BILL IF IT DIDN'T HAVE CARVEOUTS FOR DISCOUNTS.

>> AARP WOULD HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED THIS BILL IF THEY DID AWAY WITH THAT, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THE BILL.

THEY'RE CARVED OUT.

>> GEDYE SAYS FOR CONSUMERS, IF THIS BILL IS SIGNED, IT WILL MEAN MORE FAIR TRANSPARENT PRICING.

>> THEY WILL BE ABLE TO TRUST THAT THE PRICE THEY'RE SEEING ISN'T BASED ON, YOU KNOW, IS IT HIGHER FOR THEM BASED ON THEIR SEARCH HISTORY, WHAT THEY WERE JUST GAGGLING FOR, OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY CHECKED THE PRICE FOR THAT ITEM LAST WEEK.

>> SOME ECONOMIC EXPERTS SAY, IF SIGNED, THE POLICY WOULD MEAN ELIMINATING RESTRICTIONS THIS PRACTICE PUTS ON THE MARKET.

>> THEY'RE KIND OF MONOPOLIZING.

IN A WAY, YOU CALL THAT WEAPONIZING ON OUR INFORMATION.

THAT'S THE TERM.

THEY'RE TURNING IT INTO A WEAPON.

INFORMATION SHOULD BE GOOD, RIGHT?

BUT USING OUR INFORMATION TO BE USED AS A WEAPON TO EXTRACT MORE MONEY FROM OUR POCKETS, IN THAT SENSE, IT IS UNFAIR.

>> SOME LEGAL EXPERTS SAY, HOWEVER, THAT IT'S HARD TO PREDICT WHAT THIS BILL'S IMPACT MAY LOOK LIKE IF SIGNED, BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER STATES SUCH AS MARYLAND WHO HAVE SURVEILLANCE PRICING BANS.

>> THE NEW YORK STATUTE APPEARS, AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED AND PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, TO BE MUCH BROADER IN ITS SCOPE.

THE MARYLAND STATUTE REALLY APPEARS TO HAVE FOCUSED ON THE FOOD INDUSTRY AND RETAIL FOOD STORES.

WHEREAS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE, IT WOULD APPLY AGAIN TO ANY ENTITY THAT USES THIS DATA FOR PRICING PURPOSES.

>> SOME LEGISLATIVE SPONSORS SAY THEY FEEL CONFIDENT THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN THIS BILL INTO LAW, BUT EXPECT THERE MAY BE SOME AMENDMENTS WHICH THEY ARE OPEN TO.

>> I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THERE WERE SOME CHAPTER AMENDMENTS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH BANKS DON'T OFFER THESE KINDS OF DISCOUNTS TO PEOPLE, THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT BEING INCLUDED IN ONE.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DIDN'T THAT IS BECAUSE AMAZON AND APPLE AND YOU KNOW, TARGET, THEY ALL DO THEIR OWN CREDIT CARDS.

THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES.

>> SOME POLITICAL ANALYSTS SAY THIS BILL IS SOMETHING THE GOVERNOR WILL LIKELY SIGN BUT NOT WITHOUT CHANGES.

>> MY IMPRESSION IS THAT SHE'LL PROBABLY WANT TO SIDE A LITTLE MORE ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

SO I THINK THAT SHE'S GOING TO BE OPEN TO SOME CHANGES.

>> THE BILL HAS NOT YET BEEN SENT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK, BUT ONCE IT HAS, GOVERNOR HOCHUL WILL HAVE ABOUT TEN DAYS TO REVIEW IT.

IF SHE SIGNS THIS BILL ALONG WITH A CHAPTER AMENDMENT REQUEST, THAT MEANS THE AMENDMENT WILL THEN HAVE TO PASS THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> AND JOINING US NOW TO TALK MORE ABOUT SURVEILLANCE PRICING IN NEW YORK IS OUR ELISE KLINE.

ELISE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT GOVERNOR KATHIE HOCHUL WILL SIGN THIS BILL INTO LAW?

>> YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO SAY.

I THINK THAT IT IS PRETTY LIKELY THAT SHE WILL SIGN IT, BUT PROBABLY WITH SOME TYPE OF AMENDMENT.

LAST YEAR, SHE SIGNED A BILL TO REQUIRE COMPANIES TO DISCLOSE WHEN THEY USE ALGORITHMIC-TYPE PRICING.

THAT KIND OF POINTS TO THIS IS AN ISSUE SHE IS LIKELY TO SUPPORT, BUT BASED ON WHAT LAWMAKERS TOLD ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF WHO SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION, LIKE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR INSTANCE, BUT A LOT OF LAWMAKERS HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN OPINION IN TERMS OF WHO, WITHIN THAT SCOPE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE COMPANIES LIKE, WHO HAVE A CREDIT CARD OR SOME TYPE OF OTHER FINANCIAL LIKE GOOGLE PAY, THINGS LIKE THAT, CAN DEFINE THEM AS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

SO THAT KIND OF BROADENS THE SCOPE A LITTLE BIT OF WHO IS CONSIDERED A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.

SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION THERE, I THINK.

>> YEAH.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM LAWMAKERS AND ADVOCATES ABOUT THEIR CURRENT CONVERSATIONS WITH EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OTHER ON THIS?

>> SO THEY SEEM TO FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT, BUT THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME TYPE OF CHAPTER AMENDMENT PROCESS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO REQUEST WHATEVER AMENDMENT SHE WANTS TO SEE TO THE BILL BASED ON THEIR NEGOTIATIONS THEY'RE HAVING AND THEN THEY WILL HAVE TO THEN GO AND SIGN IT.

SHE SIGNS IT BASED ON IT WILL HAVE TO THEN PASS AGAIN WITH AN AMENDMENT.

>> RIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND IF THE BILLS PASSED, WHAT ARE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT FOR THE STATE?

>> WELL, THE BILL LAYS OUT THAT THE COSTS WILL BE PRETTY MINIMAL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF, YOU KNOW, AND SOME OF THE ENFORCEMENT FINES ARE ALSO LIKE NOT REALLY THAT LARGE.

THEY'RE LIKE $5,000 FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION AND THEN LIKE 25,000 FOR THE SECOND.

BUT THE BILL HAD LAID OUT THAT IT WON'T BE TOO LARGE IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I BELIEVE, WOULD HANDLE THAT.

>> SO WOULD THE COMPANIES THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH LIKE A REPORTING PROCESS TO THE STATE AGENCIES OR THE EXECUTIVE CHAMBER TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE?

>> YES.

IT GIVES THEM ALSO A TIME LINE TO ADJUST.

I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT SIX MONTHS OR SO.

SO THEY HAVE BASICALLY A TIME TO ADJUST.

IF IT IS SIGNED, THEY HAVE A TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS.

>> AND IF HOCHUL DOES NOT SIGN THE BILL, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM ADVOCATES ABOUT THEIR STRATEGY TO ENSURE THAT THIS MAKES IT OVER THE LEGISLATIVE FINISH LINE NEXT YEAR?

I KNOW THINGS CERTAINLY ARE SUPER BUSY ON PLANET ALBANY.

SO HOW ARE THEY ENSURING THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BUDGET DOESN'T TAKE UP ALL OF THE ATTENTION NEXT YEAR?

>> I THINK THAT IT WILL BE SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY DID THIS PAST YEAR.

THEY WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD RALLIES, BUT A LOT OF LAWMAKERS ARE REALLY BEHIND THIS LEGISLATION.

SO I WOULD IMAGINE IF IT DOESN'T GET SIGNED AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE A NEW VERSION THAT THEY WILL PUT THAT SAME EFFORT TOWARDS IT.

ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE SUPPORT FROM STATE LEADERS LIKE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SHE WAS AT A RALLY THIS PAST YEAR.

I IMAGINE SHE WILL RAMP UP HER EFFORTS AS WELL TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF AND I THINK HAVING LIKE A STATE LEADER BEHIND LEGISLATION REALLY DOES MAKE A INKS DIFFERENCE.

SO I THINK MAYBE THAT WILL SWAY GOVERNOR HOCHUL AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

>> AS YOU WERE REPORTING ON THIS, WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU MOST WHEN YOU WERE HEARING-- WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING TO CONSUMERS, YOU DID A TON OF FIELD REPORTING ON THIS ISSUE ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL AND HOW IT WOULD IMPACT THEIR SHOPPING EXPERIENCES?

>> WHAT I HEARD IS THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT PRICES GOING UP AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THEY INTERACT WITH BASICALLY.

WHEN YOU SHOP ONLINE, THERE'S SO MANY AVENUES IN WHICH LIKE PRICES CAN BE SET BASED ON VISITING WEBSITES AND APPS AND I THINK THAT THE BIGGEST CONCERN WAS JUST THAT THEY'RE BEING PRICED UNFAIRLY AND I HEARD SOME CONSUMERS SAY THAT WHILE THEY UNDERSTAND SOME-- AND IN THE POSITIVE END SOMETIMES THAT CAN MEAN A-- MORE OF LIKE TAILORED DISCOUNT FOR CONSUMERS.

HOWEVER, THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY WANT TO PLAY THE GAME BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO END UP JUST LIKE SORT OF HURTING THEM IN THE END.

IT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY BE THAT BENEFICIAL FOR THEM.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WELL, SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR TODAY BUT WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INCREDIBLE REPORTING, ELISE.

AND FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE FUTURE OF THOSE BILLS, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE.

THAT'S AT NYNOW.ORG.

NOW TURNING IT TO ANOTHER IMPORTANT TOPIC.

NEW YORK STATE HAS MORE THAN 5,400 DAMS ACROSS THE STATE.

WHILE MANY OF THE DAMS ARE ESSENTIAL TO FLOOD CONTROL, THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT HAVE BEEN DEEMED HAZARDOUS.

IN THIS NEXT SEGMENT, DAVID LOMBARDO OF WCNY THE CAPITAL PRESS ROOM SAT DOWN WITH LAURA RABINOW OF THE ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT FOR A DYNAMIC DISCUSSION ON THE STATE OF DAMS IN NEW YORK.

HERE'S THAT CONVERSATION.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> LAURA, ASIDE FROM MAYBE THE DAM IN LETCHWORTH PARK, I DON'T THINK MOST NEW YORKERS HAVE A SENSE OF THE AGE, NUMBER OR TYPES OF DAMS THAT LITTER NEW YORK.

SO CAN YOU GIVE US SORT OF A SENSE OF WHAT THAT PICTURE LOOKS LIKE?

>> SURE.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DAM INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS NEW YORK STATE.

THERE ARE ABOUT 6,000 OR SO DAMS THAT WE HAVE LISTED AS THE STATE.

THE NUMBERS VARY SLIGHTLY TO GREATLY DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE DATA.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A NATIONAL INVENTORY OF DAMS THAT HAS ABOUT 92,000 DAMS.

IN THAT INVENTORY, NEW YORK ONLY HAS ABOUT 1,600 DAMS.

THAT'S BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR DAMS MAY NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BEING INCLUDED, SIZE, HAZARD LEVEL, ET CETERA, RIGHT?

BUT WE HAVE ABOUT 6,000 ACCORDING TO STATE DATA.

THERE'S ALSO LIKELY ANOTHER NUMBER OF DAMS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE WITHIN THAT DATA SET AS WELL THAT RESEARCHERS ARE WORKING TO LOCATE, IDENTIFY AND MAP CONTINUALLY, BUT THERE ARE ABOUT 6,000.

OF THOSE 6,000 THAT WE DO HAVE, THE AVERAGE AGE IS AROUND 87 YEARS OLD.

THAT'S QUITE OLD.

IT'S ABOUT 20 YEARS OLDER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

WE ARE AN OLD STATE.

WE ARE AN INDUSTRIALIZED STATE AND A LOT OF OUR DAM INFRASTRUCTURE GOES BACK A LONG, LONG WAYS WE HAVE DAMS ON RECORD AS OLD AS 1699 TODAY.

SO THAT'S QUITE OLD.

AND THEN IN TERMS OF SIZE, I THINK A LOT OF OUR POPULAR IMAGINATION PROBABLY CULTIVATES IDEAS AND IMAGES OF LIKE HOOVER DAM.

>> SURE >> IN THE SOUTHWEST, VERY LARGE, LIKE 700-PLUS FOOT DAM.

ON AVERAGE OUR DAMS ARE ABOUT 15 FEET TALL.

RIGHT?

SO MUCH, MUCH SMALLER.

>> AND WHAT SORT OF ROLE DO THESE DAMS POTENTIALLY PLAY ACROSS THE STATE IF THEY ARE SMALL DAMS, LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND NOT THE HOOVER DAM OR THE DAM THAT RICHARD KIMBELL JUMPS OFF IN "THE FUGITIVE?"

>> THEY PLAY A LOT OF DIFFERENT ROLES IN OUR COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE.

SOMETIMES RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, RIGHT.

THEY MAY HAVE AN AESTHETIC VALUE FOR FOLKS.

THEY MAY PROVIDE FOR A DRINKING WATER RESERVOIR.

THEY MAY PROVIDE FOR FLOODING CONTROL OR ENERGY PRODUCTION.

SO MANY DIFFERENT REASONS AND SOME OF THESE MAY BE HISTORICAL OR LEGACY REASONS THAT ARE NO LONGER IN USE OR PRODUCTIVE.

>> WELL, IN ADDITION, AS YOU POINTED OUT, NEW YORK HAVING ON AVERAGE OLDER DAMS THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, YOU ALSO NOTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT THERE'S AN INCREASING NUMBER OF DAMS THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS HIGH OR SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STATUS QUO?

SHOULD WE BE PUTTING OUT AN ALERT RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW TO VIEWERS, OR IS THAT DEFINITION AND THOSE WORDS HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS THAN WHAT THEY SOUND LIKE TO OUR EARS?

>> NO.

AND NOT TO SCARE ANYBODY, THAT'S FOR SURE.

>> THAT'S FOR RATINGS WEEK.

[LAUGHTER] >> THERE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS, RIGHT?

ONE IS A HAZARD CLASSIFICATION AND ONE IS A CONDITION ASSESSMENT.

THE HAZARD CLASSIFICATION SAYS IF SOMETHING HAPPENED, THE IMPACT WOULD BE AND THEN SAYS THE SEVERITY OF THAT IMPACT.

THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT SAYS THIS IS THE STATE IT'S ACTUALLY IN RIGHT NOW, RIGHT.

SO IS IT LIKELY TO EVEN HAVE THEM?

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEPARATE THAT OUT RIGHT NOW JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS HIGHER HAZARD, DOESN'T MEAN SOMETHING'S NOT IN GOOD CONDITION.

HOWEVER, OF THE 6,000 DAMS THAT WE HAVE, ABOUT 4,500 ARE LOW HAZARD.

ABOUT A THOUSAND ARE INTERMEDIATE OR HIGH HAZARD.

AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE IN POOR CONDITION, BUT SOME OF THOSE HAVE NOTED DEFICIENCIES.

SO WE'RE THINKING THEN ABOUT 300 OR SO THAT MIGHT HAVE MORE NOTED DEFICIENCIES.

THOSE SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, OF CONCERN TO PEOPLE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE EACH ONE IS ACROSS THE STATE, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN RENEWED EFFORT PARTICULARLY SINCE 2010, WHEN WE LOOKED AT OUR LAWS AND REGULATIONS AROUND DAMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING MORE RECENT CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OF THESE DAMS.

>> AND RIGHT NOW WHAT IS THE STATE'S OVERSIGHT ROLE, OR WHAT TYPES OF RESOURCES ARE BEING DEDICATED TO THIS WORK?

IN YOUR REPORT, YOU NOTED THAT THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST, MASSACHUSETTS, HAVE A DEDICATED TEAM OF PEOPLE WORKING ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

SO WHAT DOES NEW YORK'S RESPONSE LOOK LIKE?

>> WE HAD ABOUT SEVEN FULL-TIME STAFF PRIOR TO MORE RECENT LEGISLATION.

WE NOW HAVE ABOUT NINE FULL-TIME STAFF ACROSS DEC.

THAT, HOWEVER, I THINK DOESN'T REFLECT MAYBE THE LARGER NUMBER OF DAMS THAT WE HAVE.

SO MASSACHUSETTS, AS YOU NOTED BY COMPARISON, HAS ABOUT 25 FULL-TIME STAFF MEMBERS.

THEY HAVE ABOUT HALF THE NUMBER OF DAMS IN THEIR STATE THAT WE HAVE IN NEW YORK.

SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAD IN OUR REPORT, AND SPEAKING TO A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT WORK ON DAMS, DAM OWNERS, REGULATORY STAFF, NONPROFIT, ENGINEERING FIRMS WAS TO HAVE A DEDICATED TEAM AS THEY DO IN MASSACHUSETTS.

SO THAT WE'RE CENTRALIZING THAT KIND OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND PROVIDING MORE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT DAM OWNERS AND COMMUNITIES AS THEY NAVIGATE THESE PROCESSES.

>> YEAH.

AND SO WHILE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STRONG AND PRESENT-- STATE PRESENCE, THERE IS, AS YOU POINTED OUT, A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY AND VARIANCE IN HOW DAMS ARE USED, SO DOES THAT MEAN YOU NEED TO HAVE SORT OF FLEXIBLE, I GUESS, CASE-BY-CASE APPROACH TO THE FUTURE OF ALL THESE DAMS?

WHAT MIGHT MAKE SOME SENSE TO GET RID OF SOME OR MODIFY OTHERS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE DAMS DO WORK IN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES.

>> YEAH.

ABSOLUTELY.

EVERY COMMUNITY IS GOING THROUGH ITS OWN SET OF FACTORS THAT IT NEEDS TO WEIGH.

THAT SAID, IN TERMS OF RESTORING CONNECTIVITY AND LOOKING AT IT FROM AN ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PERSPECTIVE, IF WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE MORE RIVER MILES, RIGHT, THAT ARE CONNECTED, WHAT WE FOUND THROUGH OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND WORKING ACROSS STATES, IS THAT PUTTING A PRIORITY ON DAM REMOVALS WAS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT, RIGHT?

SO STATES LIKE MASSACHUSETTS, SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT-- >> SURE.

>> HAVE PRIORITIZED REMOVALS HAVE HAD GREATER SUCCESS AT REMOVING THEM.

NEW YORK TAKES A PRETTY NEUTRAL POSITION, RIGHT, THAT SAYS HERE ARE ALL OF THE OPTIONS, WHICHEVER OPTION YOU WANT TO GO DOWN, THAT'S FINE.

AND THAT STILL MAY BE FINE, BUT YOU CAN PRIORITIZE WHICH OF THOSE YOU MIGHT GET A BETTER COST BENEFIT FROM IN THE LONG TERM FROM BOTH A COST PERSPECTIVE AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS PERSPECTIVE.

>> WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR THIS CONVERSATION.

LAURA, THANK YOU SO IN FOR JOINING US IN THE STUDIO.

>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> WELL, THAT DOES IT FOR THIS EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW."

THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN AND SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

[ THEME MUSIC ] >> FUNDING FOR "NEW YORK NOW" IS PROVIDED BY WNET.