By THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
Francis Menton
If you have been following this blog closely, you know that I, along with two excellent colleagues, participated in our local utility Con Edison’s rate process. A rate litigation is the mechanism by which a utility goes before a regulatory agency, in our case the New York Public Service Commission, to increase the rates charged to consumers. Our purpose in this proceeding was to object to and prevent taxpayers from charging fees to build infrastructure in pursuit of the futile and unworkable “climate” goals of our deluded politicians.
One of the rules is that anyone with a genuine interest in the outcome can “intervene” if they wish and participate in the process as a party. That’s how we got involved. And through the same mechanism, several parties committed to the utopian future of “renewable” and “zero-emission” energy also came together. Green energy advocates included 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 portray itself as a supporter of low consumer rates, but at the same time has issued its own mandate for electric building heat that can only be implemented with the support of expensive new infrastructure to be built by Con Edison.
When we last looked at this issue on November 28, a lengthy settlement process of approximately six months had just been concluded with a nearly 300-page document called the Settlement Parties’ Joint Proposal (JP). Almost all parties had registered, with the exception of my own small group. The JP was entered into the case file on November 5th under number 183; and on November 6, a 6-page “Summary of the Joint Proposal” was entered into the file under number 185. The signatories of the JP included all environmental groups and also New York City, along with Con Edison itself and the employees of the Department of Public Service. On November 26th, my two colleagues and I filed an objection with file number 214, which was discussed in the November 28th post.
Since then, the Civil Service Commission has assigned three of its administrative law judges to conduct a public hearing for any objectors to cross-examination of witnesses. Ahead of the hearing, my colleagues and I asked for a breakdown of which of Con Edison’s approved costs in the JP supported “climate goals” such as electrifying buildings and vehicles; However, the company only responded with an objection and refused to reveal the costs associated with the climate law. The hearing then took place on December 3rd. After the hearing, the parties had until December 12 to file a post-trial brief. Our order is number 227 on the file.
The problem for the settlement’s proponents, particularly Con Edison and public officials, was that they had admitted in the documents that the JP provided “financing” for “climate” goals. This is a quote from the summary of the joint proposal:
The joint proposal contains numerous provisions designed to improve New York State’s ability to achieve the objectives of the CLCPA [Climate Act]including provisions or funding that:
- Improvement of the electrical system with regard to the electrification of transport and buildings; . . .
- facilitate the transition to clean energy
As stated in our November 26 objection, the state admitted in a letter filed in an August 2025 lawsuit that New York’s climate law requirements had now become “unworkable” and would impose “extraordinary and harmful costs” that would be “unaffordable” for consumers. These admissions gave us the opportunity in our final letter to point out the crazy box the parties had gotten themselves into. Some excerpts:
The summary of the joint proposal did not say that there was “funding” for this in the JP [“climate”-related] would be important if there was no funding. And yet all witnesses from both the workforce and the company resolutely refused to provide any quantification or disclosure of the amount of funding in question. The independent interveners made it clear that they wanted this breakthrough both in evidence and in cross-examination, and they had specifically indicated in their statement of objection before the hearing that they intended to inquire on this issue. And yet none of the 21 witnesses who appeared wanted to address this issue in the matter.
A fair conclusion is that DPS finds itself in a quandary between, on the one hand, activists who insist on authorizing spending to pursue CLCPA goals, no matter how expensive or impractical, and, on the other hand, Con Edison ratepayers (including two of the independent interveners) who are squeezed by rising costs and believe that rate increases should be minimized. Therefore, in order to appease the activists, the employees adopted the strategy of approving inflated costs and then agreeing with the company to conceal and hide these costs from the general public in order to minimize the backlash. This strategy is not legitimate and should not be supported by the ALJs or the Commission.
At this point the matter rests with the ALJ to make a decision. And then it goes to the full Civil Service Commission for final approval and implementation. After that, we will have the opportunity in a lawsuit to expose Con Edison and the Department of Public Service’s efforts to make wasted “climate spending” and hide the amounts from the public.
Like this:
Load…
Explore more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to receive the latest posts by email.
Comments are closed.