Today I spent the day with my excellent collaborator Richard Ellenbogen cross-examining witnesses at the New York Public Service Commission’s hearing on whether the pending rate increase request of our utility Con Edison should be approved. We had a lot of fun. Although the hearing was theoretically open to the public, they had no live video feed, and you had to register in advance to attend in person. It looked like everybody there was an interested party.
At the close of the hearing, we were invited (along with everybody else) to file a post-hearing brief by next Friday, December 12. The hearing provided us with lots of good material, and we will be putting together a good scathing screed as our contribution. You can look forward to a post on the subject next Friday or Saturday.
But meanwhile, the short version is that the witnesses put up by Con Edison and the Department of Public Service to support their settlement proposal claimed to know absolutely nothing about our objection. Don’t feel bad for us. That’s actually a damning admission, because the proponents of the rate increase need to establish a rational basis for it. If instead it is deemed “arbitrary and capricious,” it will fail. Our position is that the rate increase is arbitrary and capricious because it provides ratepayer funding for mandates that have been admitted by the state to be “infeasible,” and that will not happen during the period of the rate increase.
As the single most striking example (among several), we had cited and quoted in our Statement of Opposition to the rate increase a 6 page letter submitted in August 2025 by the state Attorney General on behalf of the state government in a court proceeding, asserting that the goals of the 2019 Climate Act for emissions reductions by 2030 were “infeasible” and would impose “extraordinary and damaging” costs on New Yorkers. We had asked for witnesses to address the issues raised in our Statement, and particularly how much ratepayer money was getting approved to then be wasted on infeasible goals that would not be met. Con Edison and Department of Public Service each put up about ten witnesses to answer our questions. But when asked, not one of them would admit familiarity with the state letter or that they had read it. Not one of them would answer whether the rate increase proposal contained ratepayer funding to support goals that the state itself had conceded were “infeasible,” or would agree to quantify how much ratepayer funding was to be wasted on chasing infeasible goals. And then it went on downhill from there.
But meanwhile, there has been other news on the New York Climate Act front. On November 25 a Washington think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute put out a Report with the title “NEW YORK’S CLIMATE CROSSROADS: ASSURING AFFORDABLE ENERGY.” The Report takes serious note that New York’s “climate” regime is in big trouble.
I am not greatly familiar with PPI. Although they do not appear to be from the lunatic fringe, they are definitely a left-wing group, and from reviewing their website, they clearly share the fundamental belief of the Left that the government can, and therefore must, solve all human problems. And with the word “progressive” is in their name, they are not seeking to avoid association with the crazy wing of the Democratic Party.
And yet PPI has definitely taken a step outside the reservation here. With the orthodoxy enforcement that has been pervasive in the left-side climate space for two decades or more, there has been almost no criticism from that perspective of any or all efforts to achieve a forced march to climate net zero utopia. So it is no small event that PPI has now gone on record telling New York that its grand climate plans are crumbling.
OK, they don’t use exactly those words. But they also are not scrupulously avoiding reality in the way of, say, the New York Times.
I’ll give you a few choice excerpts. Here is the opening line:
New York has established some of the nation’s most ambitious decarbonization targets, positioning itself as a leader in climate policy. However, the immense economic burden and practical challenges of implementing these mandates threaten their political viability. As the costs of this transition fall heavily on ratepayers and working families, a critical tension emerges between state-level climate objectives and the everyday financial realities faced by New Yorkers.
Just yesterday the official party line was that the “renewables” wind and solar were cheaper than hydrocarbon fuels for generating electricity, and therefore if your bills were going up it could only be because of nefarious deeds of some combination of evil actors, like the utilities or the oil companies, or maybe Donald Trump. So that opening statement from PPI represents a very significant shift toward reality.
On the 2019 New York Climate Act:
An assessment of New York’s progress against the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), using the state’s own metrics, reveals a clear and undeniable pattern of failure across its most critical mandates. . . . New York is not on track to meet its targets. Progress on offshore wind and energy storage, two cornerstones of the state’s grid transformation strategy, is severely behind schedule. This poor performance is not an anomaly but a symptom of deeper, systemic pressures that are converging on the state’s energy system.
And then PPI goes so far as to describe the current situation as a “looming crisis” of both grid stability and and affordability, brought about by the state’s own poorly-conceived policies and mandates:
The Looming Crisis: A Collision of Supply, Demand and Cost: New York is not on track to meet its targets. Progress on offshore wind and energy storage, two cornerstones of the state’s grid transformation strategy, is severely behind schedule. This poor performance is not an anomaly but a symptom of deeper, systemic pressures that are converging on the state’s energy system.
Well, guys, welcome to the right side of history. Now that we have this crack in the dyke of left-wing unanimity for strict net zero mandates, perhaps the flood will begin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the article: “Our position is that the rate increase is arbitrary and capricious because it provides ratepayer funding for mandates that have been admitted by the state to be “infeasible,” and that will not happen during the period of the rate increase.”
Sounds like a good argument to me.
Why should ratepayers pay for something they will never see?
“Why should ratepayers pay for something they will never see?
CIA
Flouride in drinking water
Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars satellites.
Anything bought by last year’r congress with my grandkid’s tax revenue.
Reagan’s “Star Wars” satellites achieved the purpose of bankrupting the Soviet Union, who tried to keep up with the technology. That, plus the Chernobyl disaster, precipitated the collapse of the USSR, and thanks to Reagan, we did not have a nuclear conflagration.
Ending the hot phase of the “Cold War” was money very well spent.
Compilation of KKV hover tests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnofCyaWhI0
Fuel duration in space would be much longer without the need to constantly thrust against gravity.
Tom,
Why pay for something never to be seen?
Now you know why I so detest compulsory insurance cover, as for our unit in a bigger block of 14 units. Same principle.
Geoff S
Duuh! Wind and solar cannot sustain grid
level service, at least not for long.
And not on demand!
And in fact, they consume more energy to construct, operate, and dispose of than they will ever produce in their lifetimes. Prove me wrong, show me a single manufacturer of such systems using solely wind and solar systems to power their operations. I’ll wait…
Let’s presume that other than the Menton-Ellenbogen-Caiazza Intervenor Team — the MECIT Wild Bunch — no one who is a recognized party to the Con Edison rate proposal has commented on the lack of a detailed master project plan for New York state’s Net Zero transition under the 2019 Climate Act, a.k.a. the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA).
If such a CLCPA master plan actually existed, it would — among other substantial benefits — bring great clarity to the decision-making process for NY-PSC approvals of utility rate increases and for approvals of energy infrastructure maintenance and enhancement projects.
For example, Con Edison and other utilities could state in their rate case proposals that their rate increase or their infrastructure enhancement project supports Activity MMMM Task NNNN on the state’s master CLCPA schedule in these X number of specific ways and for these Y number of specific reasons.
What if energy infrastructure work which isn’t listed on the state’s master CLCPA project schedule is included in a proposal?
The utility staffs and the state regulator staffs then have to be honest about why such projects are still necessary, and the environmental NGOs have to base their arguments on specifics rather than on generalized slogans and platitudes.
Better yet, a truly honest CLCPA master project schedule would include those maintenance projects for legacy energy infrastructure needed to keep the public safe and the power grid reliable until the emission-free infrastructure is in place.
OK, why doesn’t a detailed CLCPA master project plan and schedule exist for implementation of New York’s 2019 Climate Act, one which includes long-recognized project planning & control methods?
It’s because the existence of a detailed CLCPA master project plan, one with an itemized list of specific project activities and tasks, would have so many benefits for promoting the transparency of the overall Net Zero transition process that it could, and probably would, derail that process altogether.
If you work really hard defining exactly what ought to be done, government can charge you limitless fees to hire people who won’t do any of it for you.
Until the emissions free infrastructure is in place?!
LOL, it could be “in place” already and they would still need the “emissions full” stuff in place too. Not only that,, but there’s nothing “emissions free” about wind and solar anyway; the massive amount of mining, smelting, manufacturing, and all steps of transport, erection on site, demolition and disposal of all that (wind and solar) crap is all done using coal, oil and gas. And all of it will need to be replaced about every 20 years,, which means a CONTINUOUS stream of THOSE “emissions.”
“DEFRs” are central to making their “nut zero” fantasies happen, but those only exist in the form of nuclear power (or the wet dreams of ‘climate’ idiots), and I haven’t seen any construction breaking ground to build those – to the contrary, they are (or have already) shutting those down! Absent that “and then a miracle happens” bullshit, NY’s entire climate policy farce is pure delusion.
It doesn’t take a “master project plan” to see through their mass delusion. Just a functioning brain.
Mr AGW is not Science, wouldn’t it be the most interesting and entertaining thing you’ve ever seen in your life if Elise Stefanik somehow manages to be elected governor of New York state in 2026, but the state legislature still remains in the hands of the Democrats and they refuse to repeal the 2019 Climate Act, or even to modify it in any reasonable way whatsoever.
Upon taking office, Governor Stefanik immediately directs the appropriate NYS government agencies to produce a detailed CLCPA master project plan which includes an itemized list of all specific project activities and tasks which must be accomplished over time to achieve Net Zero for New York on the 2019 Climate Act’s schedule.
In building the CLCPA detailed plan and project schedule, these state agencies identify all of the actionees to the Net Zero transition project including the utilities and their staffs, the state agencies and their staffs, and the intervenor NGO organizations and their staffs.
The plan describes in great detail not only the field work itself, but also the work of reviewing and approving the rate proposals and the infrastructure upgrade projects so that everyone who has any stake at all in the transition process at any point in its execution has an identified role and responsibility which they are expected to formally acknowledge before the plan moves forward.
It is this kind of thing which will quickly get everyone’s attention. We can imagine the environmental NGOs offering every excuse under the sun as to why they shouldn’t be asked to buy in to the reality of what it will actually take to achieve the Climate Act’s emission reduction targets.
It’ll be glorious. Absolutely glorious.
Leave out “… the intervenor NGO organizations and their staffs” and don’t answer their phone calls or letters.
Oh contraire, Jim. One basic reason among several for having a CLCPA master project plan is to keep everyone with a stake in the process — and I mean everyone including the NGO organizations and their staffs — on the hook for approving or rejecting what a truly realistic Net Zero master plan calls for.
The way this works is that if an environmental NGO rejects a rate proposal or an energy infrastructure enhancement proposal which is totally realistic as to what it will cost and how much time it will take, the practical effect is to reject the CLCPA as the guiding framework for the Net Zero transition. Which is, for all practical purposes, the same thing as rejecting the Net Zero transition itself.
The intent here is to deliberately place the NGO’s and their staffs between a very hard rock and a very hard place. And also to place the politicians who support those NGOs between a very hard rock and a very hard place.
If these people don’t accept the CLCPA master plan, they admit that controlling carbon emissions isn’t their true objective. But if they do accept the master plan, they admit that the Net Zero transition can’t be achieved at the low cost in time and money they claim is possible.
My thought is to freeze the NGOs out entirely. They have no authority and never show any signs of taking responsibility for their actions. The NGOs should never have been players. And the legislation enabling the solution to set up master plan should prohibit them from being plaintiffs on any climate-related matters.
Jim, your thought isn’t applicable here. The basic point of the exercise is to wrap the master plan procedural arms around all of these people so tightly they can’t escape.
That’s as true for the regulatory agencies and their staffs as well as it is for the environmental NGOs and their staffs.
If you freeze any of the stakeholders out of the CLCPA master project plan and process, then you lose the opportunity to lock all of them simultaneously into a reality check death grip.
Beta Blocker,
“Honesty”.
Shirley the remedy is to charge dishonest public officials with knowingly making a public utterance for the purposes of illegal monetary gain.
Why is dishonesty tolerated as if matters related to “protection of the environment” have a special God-like status extending beyond existing Law? Geoff S
As I said to Jim above, the basic point of the exercise is to wrap the CLCPA master plan’s procedural arms around all of these people so tightly they can’t escape.
Let’s remember that ‘politics’ in its most general sense is the means by which we allocate resources to one purpose or another.
If the stakeholders to the CLCPA master plan choose to be dishonest, they will be caught at it and will pay a stiff political price for their dishonesty.
On the other hand, If they choose to be honest in their participation, they will be forced by the transparency of the planning process to admit that their Net Zero dreams are unachievable at any acceptable cost.
How come it took so long after McConnell brought up the Green New Deal for a vote in the Senate, and no one voted for it? Must be slow learners.
Note that the ‘no’ side has the name of a person and the ‘yes’ side does not.
“The average tenure in the U.S. Congress has grown, with recent figures for the 119th Congress (starting 2025) showing around 8.6 years for House members (about 4.3 terms) and 11.2 years for Senators (nearly 2 full terms)”
Watch ….. people that were previously alarmists will become realists and say “I knew it was a scam all along”.
Or we’ll do it better next time.
Interesting article along the same lines –
The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism – PJ Media
Thank you for attending the hearing and for this report!
“The hearing provided us with lots of good material, and we will be putting together a good scathing screed as our contribution. You can look forward to a post on the subject next Friday or Saturday.”
Perfect. We certainly need a barrage of scathing screeds against the lunacy of the NY “climate” schemes. Keep up the good work.
https://www.cfact.org/2025/11/26/new-yorks-2030-climate-target-is-impossible/
https://www.cfact.org/2025/11/04/new-yorks-climate-law-hits-the-wall/
NY’s so-called “leadership” needs the same treatment as Yosemite Sam designed for himself to avoid getting angry and losing all his inheritance…
Pie in the face followed by a whack in the head with a rolling pin followed by a kick in the ass, repeated over and over.
A good three days solid of that might wake them up (otherwise, just repeat the treatment).
It will be very interesting to see how the race for Governor influences what current Gov. Hochul does, and what she asks the D-controlled legislature to do, to deflect the challenge from Rep. Stefanik on energy matters.
What about LL99? (I think it is 99)
I don’t understand the reference. The NYC building electrification mandates maybe?
The first few paragraphs made me think about the plight of the person who discovers that they’re on the wrong side but can’t admit it. Imagine some of those interested parties going home to tell their family that the past ten or more years of their career has been a profitable fib.I believe it’s at the root of ‘TDS’. They need an even-badder super hero to destroy it all before it fails.
Mamdani might be the opposite side of the same coin. They know he can’t make any of that stuff happen. When he fails, it’s his fault and his supporters go back to work selling solar panels in popup ads.
“the plight of the person who discovers that they’re on the wrong side but can’t admit it”
Lots of Russian generals feel that way. Just recently, one admitted that the war proceeded because their intelligence service (FSB) told Putin that 70% of the Ukrainians were pro Russia and only 30% were not- when in fact, he now says, it was the other way around. Let’s see how much time it takes for him to fall out a window. So when things get really bad- a few braver souls will dare to speak up and hopefully more will follow.
Out the window.
I truly hope you fail: The sooner NY goes under, the better.
Sounds like you blindsided them in the hearing which is always a joy.
Francis, I wish the people of Wokeachusetts had somebody like you fighting against my state’s lunatic Net Zero plan. As far as I can tell, there isn’t. Very, very few people in this state dare challenge the orthodoxy.
The humanists are being forced to admit that they cannot control the environment for the better, but can only make it worse, by darkening the skies or causing a nuclear holocaust, or some other form of perversion.
And the humanists may also be learning that they should have taken math and science courses at university, rather than partying.
Francis I can’t begin to tell you how much I admire you, Richard and Roger. I have said for a long time that this mess won’t be cleaned up by convincing experts on the other side rather it will be cleaned up by us the rate payer and the tax payer, you know the average guy. Although you three are far above average, the rest of us need people like you who can put the things we believe into words Thank you.
“Now that we have this crack in the dyke…” I don’t think this is that kind of website. The word you were after is dike.