Category: NYS rate cases

February 2026 Climate Act Issues

I was recently asked to give a briefing about Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) issues. The New York’s Legislature works on a two‑year term with annual sessions from January to (roughly) mid‑June, and the centerpiece of each year is enacting the state’s April 1 budget through an executive‑budget model.  This is relevant because the Climate Act was enacted during this process and there are aspects of the law that should be considered this session.

I am convinced that implementation of the New York Climate Act net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 600 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Overview

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  Among its interim 2030 targets is a reduction target of 40% less GHG emissions and a 70% renewable energy electricity mandate.  The Climate Action Council (CAC) was responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlined how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”   Since the Scoping Plan was finalized in 2022, the State has been trying to implement the Scoping Plan recommendations through regulations, proceedings, and legislation.  As part of the implementation, the State updated its Energy Plan in 2024.

Climate Act Issues

My Climate Act issues briefing described the following key issues that need to be addressed:

  • The schedule and affordability impacts of the Climate Act can no longer be ignored
  • DEC needs to respond to the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) economy wide emission reduction initiative requirements
  • PSC must address safety valve provisions
  • Recent news stories suggest that Hochul may propose revising GHG accounting again

Climate Act Implementation Schedule

It is no longer debatable that New York has fallen behind on its Climate Act transition plan 2030 mandates.  There is no question that the 70% renewable electricity by 2030 target will not be met because the percentage of renewable energy (28% of total generation) has stayed the same since 2019.  The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) annual load and capacity data report universally known as the “Gold Book” data over the last six years is shown in Table 1.  Note that the renewable percentage shown in the table is an overestimate because the NYISO references to renewable resources do not necessarily align with the New York State Clean Energy Standard definition. 

Table 1: NYISO Gold Book Annual Total and Renewable Summer Capability  and Generation

There is supposed to be a 40% reduction in economy‑wide GHG emissions by 2030.  I reviewed the 2025 NYS GHG Emission Inventory Report in my article Implications of New York State 2025 GHG Emissions Inventory.  I found that GHG emissions through 2023 are 14% less than the 1990 baseline and emissions have been basically unchanged since 2022. That makes meeting 2030 GHG emission reduction target of a 40% reduction impossible. 

Affordability and Rate Impacts

New York currently has an energy affordability crisis because as of December 2024, over 1.3 million households are behind on their energy bills by sixty-days-or-more, collectively owing more than $1.8 billion.  My recent status summary of Climate Act affordability referenced an article about the observed rate impacts to date.  Kris Martin published a similar post that included a table ratepayer impacts. Table 2 summarizes recent electric rate cases (Con Edison, National Grid, Central Hudson, O&R, NYSEG, and RG&E with an estimate of the Climate Act proportion.

Table 2: Typical 2024 Residential Electric Costs from What it costs

Department of Public Service (DPS) staff provides estimates of the impact of the Climate Act on electric rates.  The Second Informational Report “includes the estimated costs and outcomes from 2023 through 2029 to provide the most up to date information.”  According to the Summary of Ratepayer Impact for Electric Utilities table, residential impacts of the Climate Act range from 4.6% to 10.3% of 2023 total monthly electric bills. 

In my opinion, those estimates are conservative because there is immense pressure on agency staff to minimize the costs of the Climate Act.  In addition, the costs necessary to implement the Climate Act were ramping up in 2023.  I expect that these costs will continue to climb.  Kris Martin also noted that the DPS estimates for future costs don’t include all the Renewable Energy Credits (REC) and OREC (offshore wind REC) costs that would be required to reach Climate Act targets—or even what they might realistically expect to complete. 

Also note that the State Attorney General Office is on the record that the current implementation schedule has an affordability liability.  Assistant Attorney General Meredith G. Lee-Clark submitted correspondence related to the litigation associated with Climate Act implementation that addressed affordability.  The State’s submittal  argued that it was inappropriate to implement regulations that would ensure compliance with the 2030 40% reduction in GHG emissions Climate Act mandate because meeting the target is “currently infeasible”.  The letter concluded that the Climate Act is unaffordable: “Petitioners have not shown a plausible scenario where the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal can be achieved without inflicting unanticipated and undue harm on New York consumers, and the concrete analysis in the 2025 Draft Energy Plan dispels any uncertainty on the topic: New Yorkers will face alarming financial consequences if speed is given preference over sustainability.”

All these analyses have focused on utility rate case costs. The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) has not been forthcoming about total household costs but did offer a glimpse of those costs in the State Energy Plan as described in my post Energy Affordability Fact Sheet. 

The Fact Sheet summarizes selected results in the Energy Plan Energy Affordability Impacts Analysis.   NYERDA claimed that the use of “new, efficient equipment and electrification can cut energy spending by $100 to $300 every month for many New York households” in the Fact Sheet.  However, these projections do not cover the costs of the equipment to make the reductions.  Table 3 is derived from the NYSERDA supporting documentation and shows the monthly energy costs when equipment costs are included.

Table 3: Total Monthly Energy Costs Including Levelized Equipment Costs for an Upstate New York moderate income household that uses natural gas for heat projected monthly costs and hardware costs

NYSERDA modeled four household profiles ranging from doing nothing from the starting point to a 2031 “high efficient electrification” scenario that upgrades the building shell and electrifies conventional appliances, furnace and automobiles in an Upstate home that uses natural gas in 2025. The improvements in efficiency decreases monthly energy costs for all three journeys but when capital expenditures (CapEx) is considered that changes.  The cost of Climate Act compliance is the difference between replacement of conventional equipment and the highly efficient electrification equipment.  Row 10 shows this difference.  It lists the $594 increase in costs necessary for Climate Act compliance and row 11 lists the percentage increase as 43%.  The shortcomings of this analysis are described in my review of the Fact Sheet. It is even worse than shown here.

NYSERDA’s messaging for these results is that costs are going to go up anyway and that the increase in costs due to the Climate Act are small in comparison.  I think that additional costs will add more households to the already unacceptable number living in energy poverty.

Cap‑and‑Invest and GHG Regulatory Architecture

There are two aspects of the Climate Act mandate to implement an economy-wide cap-and-invest program by January 1, 2024 that must be addressed by the Legislature and Governor Hochul.   I have described the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) regulations in many articles.  Currently DEC has only finalized the Mandatory GHG Emissions Reporting Rule.  There have been no suggestions when the two other regulations will be proposed.  The Cap-and-Invest Rule defines affected sources, binding caps, and allowance allocations.  DEC also needs an auction rule that implements the auction that will be used to distribute allowances.

This is problematic.  On 3/31/25 a group of environmental advocates filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 alleging that DEC had failed to comply with the timeframe for NYCI because DEC missed the January 1, 2024 date.  I explained that on 10/24/25 Supreme Court Judge Julian Schreibman’s decision stated that by 2/6/26 shall “promulgate rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the statewide missed statutory deadlines and ordered DEC to issue final regulations establishing economy-wide greenhouse gas emission (GHG) limits on or before Feb. 6, 2026 or go to the Legislature and get the Climate Act 2030 GHG reduction mandate schedule changed.  On 11/24/25 DEC appealed the decision.  On 1/8/26  the Albany County judge rejected the request for “reargument or reconsideration” but that does end the process.   The State has appealed to the Appellate Division.   This means that the deadline of Feb 6 is suspended until the Appellate Division rules.  Therefore, the State has no risk of being held in contempt and can safely ignore the deadline — which appears to be what is happening.   However, kicking the can down the road ignores the responsibility to reconsider what is obviously a failed prescription for energy policy.

The other NYCI issue is the DEC regulations.  The Mandatory GHG Emissions Reporting Rule was finalized December 1, 2025, but is so poorly written that I would be surprised if it gets litigated.  The auction rule regulation should not be an issue.  However, the Cap-and-Invest Rule will be controversial because there are non-trivial problems that have political consequences.  The rule will set the price trajectory for the costs of an allowance, but what price will be chosen.  There will be an increase in prices due to this rule that will have competitiveness impacts on industry.  The provision that 35 to 40% of revenues are supposed to benefit disadvantaged communities needs to address implementation logistics.  Will the funds be dispersed by direct rebates or targeted program spending?  The biggest DEC NYCI issue is the timing.  When will DEC propose these rules?

PSL 66-P Safety Valve

There is another important issue that must be resolved.  Climate Act proponents constantly state that the mandates are required by law no matter what but ignore the other associated law that includes safety valve provisions.  New York Public Service Law § 66-p “renewable energy systems” mandates define which generating sources are “renewable”.  Section 66-p (4) “Establishment of a renewable energy program” states: “The commission may temporarily suspend or modify the obligations under such program provided that the commission, after conducting a hearing as provided in section twenty of this chapter, makes a finding that the program impedes the provision of safe and adequate electric service; the program is likely to impair existing obligations and agreements; and/or that there is a significant increase in arrears or service disconnections that the commission determines is related to the program”. 

Unfortunately, the PSC has not yet considered conducting a hearing.  Two petitions have been filed calling for such a hearing.  The Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy filing on 1/6/26 made a persuasive argument that there are sufficient observed threats to reliability that a hearing is necessary to ensure safe and adequate service.  On 8/12/25 the Independent Intervenors filing argued that there were affordability and reliability issues and that there was an explicit requirement for the hearing because the customers in arrears threshold has been exceeded

On 1/28/26 the Public Service Commission issued a notice soliciting comments regarding the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy petition.

Comments on the Coalition petition are due on 3/30/26.  Stay tuned to this space for more information on how readers can force the State to be accountable for the issues described.

GHG Emission Accounting

There is another issue in the news.  In early February the Governor said that she is specifically interested in reconsidering the methodology by which the state tallies its emissions, explaining that New York’s unique 20-year metric puts the state at a disadvantage over other states that use a 100-year methodology to count their emissions. At the time the Climate Act was written it incorporated unique emissions accounting requirements that inflate the emission totals by increasing the effect of methane pollution. In my opinion, this irrational obsession with methane is misguided because, the higher impacts of methane are a laboratory artifact.  In the atmosphere, methane has less of an effect than CO2 on global warming.

In the 2023 Budget Season changing the accounting methodology was proposed because it would reduce the total GHG emissions and when NYCI kicks in that will translate to lower costs to New Yorkers.  In addition, using a unique methodology eliminates the possibility that the New York cap and invest program can be integrated into other jurisdictions’ programs.  In theory that would increase market efficiency and reduce costs. 

I applaud this pragmatic modification but shudder to think how climate advocates who got us into this mess will react.  Moreover, this is a peripheral issue compared to the others described.

Discussion

I have previously noted that decisions about the future of the Climate Act must be addressed.  The ideologues who fervently supported the promulgation of the Climate Act also zealously reject the possibility that changes are needed.  However, reality can no longer be ignored.  David Wojick recently described his report “Severe Climate Act impacts threaten New York State”.  His analysis addresses these issues and provides additional support explaining why action is needed.

Conclusion

There are significant Climate Act issues that can no longer be ignored.  Most targets are behind schedule, and the increased costs of the Climate Act will exacerbate the existing energy affordability crisis.  DEC needs to respond to the New York Cap-and-Invest (NYCI) economy wide emission reduction initiative requirements and will have to eventually respond to the litigation.  PSC must address safety valve provisions of PSL 66-P. 

Unfortunately, to be resolved all these Climate Act issues require political accountability.  The Climate Act has always been about political pandering to specific constituencies under the guise of saving the planet.  Therefore, I expect that all the inconvenient issues described will be ignored until after the election in hopes that the electorate will not catch on that the reliability of the state’s energy system is at risk and the energy system crisis will be aggravated by the Climate Act  for political gain. New York GHG emissions are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990.  Implementing the Climate Act will have no effect on global warming and the purported co-benefits are illusory. 

I doubt that the Legislature or Governor will act on these issues this year as they try to placate those who deny reality by demanding no changes to the Climate Act and the rest of us. It is time for the rest of us to demand that the PSC conduct a hearing to consider suspending or modifying the obligations of the Climate Act by submitting comments on the Coalition petition. 

National Grid Rate Case Approval

The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) unanimously approved a joint proposal on August 14, 2025, establishing a three-year electric and gas delivery rate plan for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) d/b/a National Grid for service years 2025-2028.  This article describes how Department of Public Service (DPS) blew off the concerns I raised about implementation of the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) net-zero programs in the rate case.

I am convinced that implementation of the Climate Act will do more harm than good if the future electric system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability and affordability risks.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 550 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone. 

Background

The Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction in GHG emissions and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050 and has two electric sector targets: 70% of the electricity must come from renewable energy by 2030 and all electricity must be generated by “zero-emissions” resources by 2040. Buried in all the recent utility rate cases is funding for programs to meet these targets.

Regular readers may recall that I got involved in this rate case in May. Constantine Kontogiannis and I filed a statement in opposition to the Joint Proposal (JP) settlement plan that was eventually approved on August 14..  We submitted because of our concern that, with its disproportionate efforts to support the goals of the Climate Act, the JP does not properly balance NMPC and Public Service Commission responsibilities to ensure reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy generation and delivery to ratepayers. 

One of our arguments was that Public Service Law (PSL) Section 66-P, “Establishment of a renewable energy program”, includes bounds on implementation that were not considered in the rate case. In a subsequent post I described the DPS Staff Reply Statement in Support of the JP that addressed our concerns. They basically blew off all our issues based on procedural technicalities, claims that the safety valve bounds were a statewide concern not appropriate for the rate case, and said that we did not prove that the exceedance of the safety valve trigger was because of the Climate Act.

This post describes the approved rate case.  I will follow up with another post that  responds to the Order Adopting Terms of the Joint Proposal.

Settlement Announcement

The press release that announced the adoption of the rate plan headline stated that “PSC Dramatically Reduces National Grid’s Rate Request”.  It went on to say:

 The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today adopted a joint proposal establishing three-year electric and gas rate plans for National Grid signed by 15 parties, including the company, Department of Public Service staff, consumer advocates, trade and labor groups, and large industrial customers. The Commission’s action will significantly reduce the company’s request for total electric delivery revenues by over $340 million (67% decrease from request) and total gas delivery revenues by nearly $100 million (63% decrease from request) in the first year. The adopted joint proposal delivers $110 million in annual efficiency savings, defers non-essential capital projects, and supports energy affordability programs and protections for vulnerable customers.

National Grid had sought a base delivery increase of $509.6 million (25.5 percent delivery or 10.4 percent total revenue) and $156.5 million (29.7 percent delivery or 15.7 percent total revenue) for electric and gas, respectively for one year. Instead, the Commission adopted a joint proposal establishing levelized increases, on a percentage basis, to the company’s electric revenues of $167.3 million in the first year, $297.4 million in the second year, and $243.4 million in the third year. Levelized revenues to the company’s gas revenues are $57.4 million, $64.5 million, and $71.8 million, respectively, in each of the upcoming rate years beginning September 1, 2025. National Grid, previously known as Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, provides utility service to 2.3 million customers in upstate New York.

Rate Case Summary

All the rate case DPS DMM materials are available here.  These are the documents included in the final rate case settlement:

Document TitleFile Name
Order Adopting Terms of Joint Proposal and Establishing Rate Plans201_24-E-0322 G-0323 final.pdf
Attachment A201_24-E-0322 et al. Attachment A.pdf
Attachment A – Appendix 1 – Appendix 2, Schedule 4.3201_24-E-0322 et al Attachment A_ Appendix 1 – Appendix 2, Schedule 4.3.pdf
Attachment A – Appendix 2, Schedule 5- Appendix 2, Schedule 16201_24-E-0322 et al Attachment A_Appendix 2, Schedule 5- Appendix 2, Schedule 16.pdf
Attachment A – Appendix 3-12201_24-E-0322 et al Attachment A_ Appendix 3-12.pdf
Attachment A – Appendix 13-17201_24-E-0322 et al Attachment A_ Appendix 13-17.pdf
Attachment B201_24.E.0322.G-0323_Attachment B.pdf

I did not want to wade through these documents, so I used an AI program.  I acknowledge the use of Perplexity to generate the following  summary.  I have compiled all the responses to my queries. This section summarizes the highlights by quoting the Perplexity answer. In response to queries asking for a summary of the adoption of the plans I got the following response.

Gas Rate Structure and Customer Impact

Gas Delivery Revenue Increases:

  • Rate Year 1 (April 1, 2025 – March 31, 2026): $57.4 million increase dps.ny
  • Rate Year 2 (April 1, 2026 – March 31, 2027): $64.5 million increase
  • Rate Year 3 (April 1, 2027 – March 31, 2028): $71.8 million increase

Gas Rate Plan Customer Bill Impacts:
For residential customers using an average of 78 therms per month, the total monthly bill increases are projected at:

  • Year 1: $7.66 per month (5.5% total revenue increase) nationalgridus+2
  • Year 2: $8.08 per month (5.5% total revenue increase)
  • Year 3: $9.18 per month (6.0% total revenue increase)

Electric Rate Structure and Customer Impact

Electric Delivery Revenue Increases:

  • Rate Year 1 (April 1, 2025 – March 31, 2026): $167.3 million increase dps.ny
  • Rate Year 2 (April 1, 2026 – March 31, 2027): $297.4 million increase
  • Rate Year 3 (April 1, 2027 – March 31, 2028): $243.4 million increase

Customer Bill Impacts:
For residential customers using an average of 625 kilowatt-hours per month, the total monthly bill increases are projected at:

  • Year 1: $14.32 per month (3.4% total revenue increase) nationalgridus+2
  • Year 2: $6.44 per month (5.6% total revenue increase)
  • Year 3: $4.34 per month (4.6% total revenue increase)

Rate Case and the Climate Act

I also queried Perplexity: “How much of the approved rate was for Climate Act and other state mandated projects.”  The response stated:

Gas Plan Climate and Environmental Provisions

The rate plan advances New York’s climate objectives under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA):

  • Non-Pipeline Alternatives (NPAs): Continued evaluation and promotion of alternatives to traditional gas infrastructure expansion dps.ny
  • Methane Emissions Reduction: Enhanced leak detection and survey programs to identify and repair high-emitting leaks dps.ny
  • Renewable Natural Gas: Support for connecting renewable natural gas projects dps.ny
  • Integrated Energy Planning: Coordination between gas, electric, and customer energy systems to achieve long-term climate goals nationalgridus

Electric Plan  Climate and Environmental Provisions

The electric rate plan supports New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) objectives:

Electric Rate Plan Clean Energy Advancement:

  • Renewable Energy Integration: Enhanced grid capabilities to support solar, wind, and energy storage interconnection nationalgridus
  • Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: Support for EV charging infrastructure deployment dps.ny
  • Grid Modernization: Smart grid investments to improve efficiency and enable distributed energy resources dps.ny
  • Energy Storage: Support for battery storage system interconnection and operation nationalgridus

Electric Rate Plan Environmental Justice:

  • Enhanced programs in disadvantaged communities dps.ny
  • Environmental justice considerations in infrastructure planning dps.ny
  • Community engagement and liaison programs dps.ny

Solar and Renewable Energy Support

The order includes specific provisions to support renewable energy development:

Solar Industry Benefits:

Grid Modernization for Renewables:

However, when I asked how much these projects would cost, I was disappointed. 

Based on the comprehensive review of the New York PSC orders for cases 24-E-0322 and 24-G-0323, the approved rate plans do not contain explicit breakdowns of specific dollar amounts or percentages of the rate increases allocated specifically to Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) projectsand state mandated programs. However, several important findings emerge from the analysis: documents.dps.ny

Lack of Specific CLCPA Cost Allocation

The joint proposal and supporting documents do not provide a detailed breakdown showing what portion of the approved rate increases is specifically attributed to CLCPA compliance costs versus traditional reliability, safety, and maintenance investments. This represents a significant gap in transparency regarding climate-related cost allocation to ratepayers. documents.dps.ny

CLCPA-Related Investments Identified

While specific cost breakdowns are not provided, the orders identify several CLCPA-related investment categories within the approved rate plans:

Electric System CLCPA Investments

Transmission Infrastructure:

  • CLCPA Phase 2 Transmission Projects: The joint proposal specifically mentions CLCPA Phase 2 projects and includes a provision allowing National Grid to petition for 100% Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) treatment for these projects documents.dps.ny
  • Smart Path Connect: National Grid’s share of capital investment totaling $550 million, which includes rebuilding approximately 55 miles of transmission circuits to support renewable energy transmission nationalgrid
  • Grid Modernization: Investments to support distributed energy resources and renewable energy interconnection dps.ny+1

Distribution System Enhancements:

  • Enhanced grid capabilities for solar, wind, and energy storage interconnection nationalgridus
  • Smart grid technologies to manage intermittent renewable resources nationalgridus
  • Electric vehicle infrastructure support programs dps.ny

Gas System CLCPA-Related Programs

Emissions Reduction Programs:

  • Leak detection and survey programs to reduce methane emissions nationalgrid+1
  • Leak-prone pipe replacement programs dps.ny
  • Remote methane detection programs nationalgrid

Alternative Energy Programs:

  • Non-Pipeline Alternatives (NPAs): Enhanced programs to provide alternatives to traditional gas infrastructure expansion dps.ny+1
  • Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Support: Proposals to connect four renewable natural gas projects nationalgrid
  • Electrification Programs: Support for heat pump installations and customer electrification options documents.dps.ny

Historical CLCPA Investment Context

Previous utility filings and planning documents provide context for CLCPA-related costs across New York utilities:

Statewide CLCPA Transmission Investments:

  • Phase 1 Projects: Approximately $4.16 billion in transmission investments and $2.64 billion in distribution investments across all New York utilities nyserda.ny
  • Phase 2 Conceptual Estimates: $7.62 billion in transmission and $2.16-$2.85 billion in distribution investments (conceptual estimates) nyserda.ny

National Grid’s Historical CLCPA Share:

  • Phase 2 Transmission: $1.37 billion estimated for National Grid transmission projects nyserda.ny
  • Phase 2 Distribution: $510 million to $1.2 billion estimated for National Grid distribution projects nyserda.ny

Ratepayer Cost Burden Context

The New York State Comptroller’s office has identified that ratepayers have contributed almost $2.6 billion to the Clean Energy Standard (CES) program from 2016 through 2021, with most CLCPA and CES program funding being ratepayer-based rather than state-funded. osc.ny

Transparency Gap

The lack of specific cost allocation for CLCPA compliance in the 24-E-0322 and 24-G-0323 orders represents a significant transparency issue for ratepayers. While the orders acknowledge that investments support CLCPA goals and include various climate-related programs, they do not quantify:

  • What percentage of the $708 million total three-year electric revenue increases is for CLCPA compliance dps.ny
  • What percentage of the $194 million total three-year gas revenue increases is for CLCPA compliance dps.ny
  • How much ratepayers are specifically paying for state climate mandates versus traditional utility infrastructure needs

This lack of detailed cost allocation makes it difficult for ratepayers and stakeholders to understand the true cost burden of New York’s climate policies versus traditional utility service obligations.

Hochul Response

The press release included a quote from Governor Hochul.

Governor Kathy Hochul made it clear the original rate proposal was too high. At Governor Kathy Hochul’s direction, the Department of Public Service, the staff arm of the Commission, scrutinized National Grid’s rate case to prioritize affordability. It’s the Commission’s responsibility to find the right balance between the resources needed to ensure system reliability and minimize costs to ratepayers. The Commission believes these agreements found the best possible path forward in this case.

Discussion

The point that I am trying to make in conjunction with other like-minded individuals is that Hochul’s public statements related to the Climate Act ignore reality.  She doesn’t acknowledge the impact of her state policies on the rate cases and has covered up expected costs of the net-zero transition.  To be credible the state must establish specific affordability, reliability, and environmental impact criteria, set up a tracking mechanism for each, and formulate a mandatory course of action when the criteria are exceeded.  Of course, these are bright line accountability metrics, and no political supporter of the Climate Act wants to admit their role in the New York affordability crisis.

Conclusion

I believe that the crisis facing NMPC customers is not from the changing climate, but rather the irrevocably flawed climate policy, especially as it relates to affordability.  I agree with the Perplexity recommendation in response to my queries:

Given the substantial ratepayer costs associated with CLCPA compliance and the public interest in transparency, future rate proceedings should include detailed cost allocation showing specific dollar amounts and percentages of rate increases attributed to:

  • Climate Act transmission and distribution projects
  • Climate-related operational programs
  • State-mandated environmental compliance
  • Traditional reliability and safety investments

This would provide ratepayers with clearer understanding of how their utility bills are being allocated between climate policy implementation and traditional utility service provision.