{"id":418068,"date":"2025-12-21T16:03:23","date_gmt":"2025-12-21T15:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418068"},"modified":"2025-12-21T16:03:25","modified_gmt":"2025-12-21T15:03:25","slug":"our-final-objection-to-our-local-utilitys-rate-increase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418068","title":{"rendered":"Our Final Objection To Our Local Utility’s Rate Increase"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Manhattan Contrarian<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Francis Menton<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cclimate\u201d goals of our deluded politicians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the rules of these things is that anybody with a genuine interest in the outcome can \u201cintervene\u201d if they want, and participate as a party in the proceedings. That\u2019s how we got ourselves in on the action. And by the same mechanism, multiple parties advocating for the utopian future of \u201crenewable\u201d and \u201czero emissions\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When last we visited this subject on November 28<\/a>, a lengthy settlement process of about 6 months had just concluded with a document of close to 300 pages called the \u201cJoint Proposal\u201d (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<\/a>; and on November 6 a \u201cSummary of Joint Proposal,\u201d 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<\/a>, which was discussed in the November 28 post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since that post, the Public Service Commission assigned three of its Aministrative 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\u2019s costs approved in the JP were in support of \u201cclimate\u201d 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cfunding\u201d for the \u201cclimate\u201d goals. This is a quote from the Summary of Joint Proposal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Joint Proposal contains numerous provisions that are intended to further New York State\u2019s ability to meet the goals of the CLCPA [Climate Act], including provisions or funding that will:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n