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 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’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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But it’s so much public money for the taking! They only want a few thousand dollars from every NY resident. I mean, think of ConEd’s leader’s children and how expensive their private schools are.
The executives will likely be well paid and even better if they built and operated effective and efficient generation. Building ineffective green systems might even reduce their earnings.
You cannot hire people in those roles at low pay in any case.
Thank you for this well done series on hiding massive, additional critical “green” costs.
Related….
Pennsylvania sueing PJM grid management company for high cost escalations (directly caused by Governor shutdowns of reliable, stable, nuclear and coal generation,and creatiing artificially high wind/solar-favorable wholesale markets;
massive hidden cost of utilities “green” accounting;
hiding costs of utilities accomodating residential, commercial standby generation (all distribution has to be treated as energized) that was historically unneeded;
And much more of course.
A massive, global scam that still hasn’t reached enough of public/voters because of legacy media/political self-interest.
But there is hope.
Thank you, Independent Intervenors, for pressing for the numbers! It makes perfect sense to use that line of questioning. What are they trying to hide?
They are tyring to hide th emoney associated with the Climate Act.
Just another example of how the agenda for green energy is little more that a kabuki dance over who will be made to pay for it, and that someone is always “someone else”.
There’s nothing so unimportant that you can’t spend someone else’s money on it.
A couple years back an attempt to consolidate electricity rates in SoCal was made on the premise that it offered “Green energy” for just a few cents more. Of course that was impossible. Their ploy was to wine and dine city governments into signing up everyone. You were automatically “opted in” unless you “opted out” but that little fact was well hidden and most people don’t read rate increase or changes much less a ‘new’ offering. Opting out was made difficult and in fact failed the first time around forcing those who understood to do it again. Once the increases hit the people’s bills the people revolted. My city government was bombarded with complaints and forced to remove everyone and “opting in” became the standard. Sneaky bastards.
Don’t forget to attack RGGI, which stands for “Steal and Spend on Foolish Climate Scams”.
Consider the possibility that the parties are not “hiding the amounts from the public”, rather they simply don’t know the amounts, and they don’t know how to determine the amounts, because they don’t actually have a plan.
I am not going to argue against the lack of a real plan but they could calculates how much money is being squandered trying to achieve the impossible.
If they do not know what the increase is for they should not get it.
Which court, ALJ, and Commission with be the commanders in control of the curtains to expose or maintain secrecy of the withheld details?
The conficential negotiations is SOP. Approving the rate case goes to the politically appointed Public Service Commision members who with the exception of one person are all progrressive appointees.
Do you have any legal recourse if and when you lose this argument?
A bit late isn’t it? Once government has mandated stupid and foolish energy supply methods the utility is fully justified in charging customers for the cost. That is how public utilities work.
The climate act does not mandate specific infrastructure. And the Governor has officially ruled the act is infeasible.
A free market setting the price … evolves by weeding out failures … decisions by real stakeholders … never endless public committees. Too much to ask for?
Sadly I thinki it is too much to ask.
Electricity is a regulated monopoly, the wires into the building. A free market is impossible.
If you look closely at the political theater that is the process for approving rate proposals in New York state, you see that Menton, Ellenbogen, and Caiazza are among the very few honest actors engaged in this process.
Almost everyone else including the NY-PSC itself, New York City, the Hochul administration’s energy policy staff, Con Edison, and the environmental NGO’s all profit in some way large and small from the rate approval process, doing so at either the direct or the indirect expense of New York’s energy consumers.
The next big event in the ongoing CLCPA circus will be what the Albany judge decides in early February of 2026 when the New York DEC fails to issue carbon emission regulations in compliance with the CLCPA’s clear, unambiguous written requirements and the judge’s October 2025 order.
Will he, or will he not, direct the Hochul administration to comply with the clear requirements of the CLCPA; or will he instead direct something else? And if he does direct something else, what will that ‘something else’ be? (Inquiring RE skeptics want to know.)
That decision was appealed and I am told that the appeal is likely to take a very long time so the Feb 6 deadline no longer exists. I would like to see it blow up closer to the election in any case.
Too bad. I was hoping for a defining moment that would put the Hochul administration decisively on the spot to walk the talk of their Net Zero fantasy, or admit that it can’t be done at all, let alone by the CLCPA deadlines.
You guys are doing a hell of a job, I am proud of you. The saddest part of this whole stinking mess is Con Edison. You know that they know that wind, solar and storage can’t provide the power New York needs. Yet they are on the bandwagon working for stuff they know can’t work. There is a simple solution if Con Edison engages in projects or policies that don’t work they have to suffer the loss not the tax payer or the rate payer. Looks to me like a lot of Con Edison management needs to be fired tomorrow.
The saddest part of this whole stinking mess is that it happened in the first place, starting with the nonsense climate act.
All utility companies know this can’t work, yet they are all pressed by their states and regions and voters thereof to work towards a “solution” that isn’t feasible. One friend retired after 45 years as a utility engineer precisely because he was being asked to make things happen that could not happen.