New York prides itself on being a green city. It is often ranked as the most sustainable city in the US: as a result of its density and its admirable (if financially challenged) public transit system, New Yorkers have extremely low carbon emissions per capita. Adding to its green laurels, the city council’s recent Climate Mobilization Act requires pollution-cutting retrofits on big dirty buildings – which are responsible for nearly 70% of the city’s carbon emissions.

But NYC could be doing a lot more to go green – and fight extreme economic inequality at the same time. Room for progress is most evident in the energy sector. NYC’s electric grid is polluting and inefficient, relying heavily on fossil fuels and ageing infrastructure. With the state’s oldest and dirtiest power plants concentrated in New York City’s low-income communities and communities of color, it is no surprise that each year more New Yorkers are killed by pollution from electricity generation than in any other major city in America. The system is also economically unjust: with some of the highest electricity rates in the nation, New York City saw more than two million shut-off notices in 2018 alone, and almost half a million families pay more than they can afford in energy costs.

Mayor Bill de Blasio just announced an energy plan that would potentially move New York City a big step in the wrong direction. In a little-discussed provision of the city’s latest OneNYC sustainability plan, Mayor de Blasio commits to powering 100% of City government operations with “clean” hydroelectric power from Canadian state company Hydro-Québec. According to the mayor, this would help the city move away from coal and gas, in the process cutting emissions by 40% over the next decade. What’s not to like?

The mayor’s proposal calls for construction of a 330-mile-long underground high-voltage transmission cable, called the Champlain-Hudson Power Express (CHPE), to bring power from Canada down to NYC. The project, which is slated to cost nearly $20bn, would lock NYC into dependence on Canadian hydropower long-term, while diminishing the ability for local offshore wind, solar and other renewable industries to thrive.

Furthermore, there is nothing “clean” about hydropower. Building the CHPE would require excavating a trench down the spine of the Hudson Valley, a costly and environmentally disruptive enterprise. Construction could potentially stir up long-buried carcinogenic PCBs in the Hudson River, the nation’s largest superfund site, threatening a recovery process championed by advocates for decades. And the dams that would generate power for NYC have flooded hundreds of miles of boreal forest, annihilating watershed ecosystems and agricultural potential across the north-eastern US.

There are also serious questions about how affordable and reliable the CHPE project will be. In April Hydro-Québec’s own managing director admitted to millions in losses from power failures attributed to climate change. With the inevitability of more extreme weather events, city government operations in America’s largest metropolis should not be powered by imported electricity from vulnerable sources hundreds of miles away.

Politically, Hydro-Québec’s projects undermine First Nations sovereignty in Canada. Members of the Pessamit Innu First Nation have accused Hydro-Québec of “cultural genocide” for the damage to rivers that have been vital to their economy and cultural traditions for generations. Although Hydro-Québec has promised to supply NYC’s municipal energy needs without building new dams, the city will nonetheless be investing long-term in a company that has been building a series of new dams since the late 2000s. Ninety percent of proposed Canadian hydroelectric projects threaten to expose indigenous communities to poisonous methylmercury directly resulting from damming rivers and flooding forests.

This is not the first time Mayor de Blasio squandered a chance to command bold leadership on climate change. The New York Power Authority (NYPA), a public-benefit corporation, supplies power to city government. NYPA recently coordinated the largest procurement of renewable energy in US history, and the city was not an active participant. The mayor could have used the procurement to request a truly renewable energy product that includes provisions for economic opportunities developed in partnership with historically burdened communities. He would have made strides in the city’s climate targets while establishing NYC as a hub for the clean energy industry, benefiting communities bearing the brunt of rising inequality and environmental pollution.

There are still paths for New York City to transition to renewable energy. The mayor can still request a renewable energy product that requires local economic development commitments and does not depend on foreign hydropower. While technologies like offshore wind currently cost more, evidence shows that upfront government support for nascent renewable industries leads to competitive pricing long-term. Additionally, the city could democratize the energy system by devoting more resources to grassroots-led and locally owned clean energy projects in underserved communities, and facilitate direct community investment in new infrastructure. Such initiatives would guarantee far reaching economic returns and reduced energy bills, offsetting regressive impacts from rising living costs and the steep hike proposed for energy consumers.

The stakes have never been higher for America’s largest city to transition to renewable energy. With the limited time we have left, the mayor needs to rethink his commitment to Canadian hydropower, instead investing in energy initiatives that truly empower New Yorkers in an era of growing inequality and climate change.