‘The last thing New York’s economy needs is a government mandate telling us what kind of power we must buy and driving up our costs.” The president of the Business Council of New York State, Daniel Walsh, offered that trenchant comment this summer, as Governor Pataki made ready to impose a surcharge on electric bills to subsidize the development of windmill farms and other sources of “renewable energy.”

If only Mr. Pataki, who styles himself a business-friendly fiscal conservative, had heeded Mr. Walsh’s counsel. Instead, he last week allowed his Public Service Commission to approve this ill-conceived exercise in state allocation of resources. The result is what ought to go down in the annals of state government as the Pataki tax. Certainly the responsibility for this folly is all his. As with most of the key changes in energy policy this governor has enacted, he does not intend to consult the Legislature on this latest step.

Mr. Pataki announced the project in his State of the State address of 2003, when he set a goal, within the next decade, of obtaining at least 25% of the state’s electricity from “renewable” sources – such as wind, the sun, and water – up from 19% today. He spoke of cleaner air and less reliance on imported oil, which, in the abstract, are worthy goals. What he did not make clear at the time is that he expected consumers to foot the bill.

The administration owned up to the costs in June, when it released a report estimating that meeting the goal would add as much as 1.8% to residential electric bills and 2.4% for industrial customers. A proponent said the impact on a typical household would amount to $1 a month, the equivalent of a cup of coffee. For some of the companies that provide those coffee drinkers with their livelihoods, however, the extra cost will run into the millions.

“At a time when New York State has been hemorrhaging jobs, especially in its manufacturing sector, that’s unconscionable,” was Mr. Walsh’s take on that. The other shoe dropped last week when the Public Service Commission spelled out how the cash for the subsidies will be collected – through a state-imposed surcharge of approximately 2% on electric bills. The comment from the chairman of the Assembly Energy Committee, Paul Tonko of Montgomery County, cut to the heart of the matter. “A wire surcharge by any other name is a tax,” he said. “Anytime government puts something on your bill that you didn’t ask for, I think they should see that as a hidden tax.”

Mr. Pataki has been, throughout his tenure, in the habit of setting energy policy without consulting the Legislature. In the past, he could justify this as the most expeditious way to accomplish worthy goals – such as deregulation of electric power generation – without the meddling and delays of the legislative process. When it comes to this energy tax, however, New Yorkers would have fared better with a little of Albany’s notorious gridlock.