Our Final Objection to Our Local Utility’s Rate Increase

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

If you have been following this blog closely, you know that I have been participating, along with two excellent colleagues, in the rate proceeding of our local utility, Con Edison. A rate proceeding is the mechanism by which a utility goes before a regulatory body, in our case the New York Public Service Commission, seeking to increase the rates charged to consumers. Our purpose in the proceeding has been to object to and disrupt having the ratepayers charged for the building of infrastructure in pursuit of the futile and infeasible “climate” goals of our deluded politicians.

One of the rules of these things is that anybody with a genuine interest in the outcome can “intervene” if they want, and participate as a party in the proceedings. That’s how we got ourselves in on the action. And by the same mechanism, multiple parties advocating for the utopian future of “renewable” and “zero emissions” energy also joined up. Among the green energy advocates in the mix were the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Alliance for a Green Economy. And then there was the New York City government, which wants to present itself as an advocate for low consumer rates, but at the same time has enacted its own mandate for electric building heat that can only be implemented with the support of some expensive new infrastructure to be built by Con Edison.

When last we visited this subject on November 28, a lengthy settlement process of about 6 months had just concluded with a document of close to 300 pages called the “Joint Proposal” (JP) of the settling parties. Nearly all of the parties had signed on, with the main exception being my own little group. The JP was filed on November 5 as number 183 on the docket of the proceeding; and on November 6 a “Summary of Joint Proposal,” 6 pages long, was filed as number 185 on the docket. Among those signing on to the JP were all of the environmental groups, and also New York City, along with Con Edison itself, and the Staff of the Department of Public Service. On November 26, my two colleagues and myself filed an Objection, number 214 on the docket, which was discussed in the November 28 post.

Since that post, the Public Service Commission assigned three of its Administrative Law Judges to conduct a public hearing for any objectors to cross-examine witnesses. In advance of the hearing, my colleagues and I asked for a breakout of which of Con Edison’s costs approved in the JP were in support of “climate” goals like building and vehicle electrification; but the Company responded only with an objection and declined to break out Climate Act-related costs. The hearing was then held on December 3. And after the hearing, the parties were given until December 12 to file a post-hearing brief. Our brief is number 227 on the docket.

The problem for the supporters of the settlement, principally Con Edison and the Public Service Department Staff, was that they had admitted in the documentation that the JP contained “funding” for the “climate” goals. This is a quote from the Summary of Joint Proposal:

The Joint Proposal contains numerous provisions that are intended to further New York State’s ability to meet the goals of the CLCPA [Climate Act], including provisions or funding that will:

• enhance the electric system in anticipation of transportation and building electrification; . . .
• facilitate the clean energy transition

As also pointed out in our November 26 Objection, the State had admitted in a letter submitted in a court proceeding in August 2025 that the mandates of New York’s Climate Act had now become “infeasible,” and would impose “extraordinary and damaging costs” that would be “unaffordable” for consumers. These admissions gave us the opportunity in our final brief to point out the crazy box into which the parties had built themselves. Some excerpts:

The Summary of Joint Proposal would not have said that there was “funding” in the JP for these [“climate”-related] matters if there was no funding.  And yet all of the witnesses for both Staff and the Company resolutely refused to provide any quantification or breakout of the amount of funding at issue.  The Independent Intervenors made a clear record by asking for this breakout both in discovery, and also on cross-examination, and they had explicitly signaled in their pre-hearing Statement in Opposition that they intended to ask about this topic.  And yet of 21 witnesses who appeared, none would address this topic on the merits.

A fair inference is that DPS finds itself caught in a whipsaw between on the one hand activists who insist on approving spending to pursue the CLCPA goals no matter how expensive or infeasible, and on the other hand Con Edison ratepayers (among them two of the Independent Intervenors) who are squeezed by rising costs and think that rate increases should be minimized.  So Staff has adopted the strategy of approving excess costs to appease the activists and then agreeing with the Company to hide and conceal those costs from the broader public to minimize the blowback.  This strategy is not legitimate and should not be countenanced by either the ALJs or the Commission.

At this point the matter goes to the ALJ’s to make a decision. And then it goes on to the full Public Service Commission for final approval and implementation. After that, we will have the opportunity in a court proceeding to make a public splash about the efforts of Con Edison and the Department of Public Service to engage in futile “climate” spending and hide the amounts from the public.