WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y. - A proposed agreement regarding Con Edison’s requested rate hikes in Westchester is being met with fierce opposition not only from county officials, but certain state representatives as well.
As announced last week by the 40-member Westchester Municipal Consortium, the deal would open the door to annual increases of 2.8 percent for electricity and 2 percent for gas, starting on Jan. 1, 2026, and running through the end of 2028.
If the utility’s original request had gone through, the delivery rates on energy bills for residential customers would have risen by an average of 11.4 percent for electricity and 13.3 percent for gas.
The “Joint Proposal” was put together by Public Service Commission staff, the WMC, the utility, and other involved entities.
The WMC has said it will not oppose the proposal. Folks have until Thursday, Nov. 21, to comment. The PSC must formally approve it before it takes effect.
Con Edison has argued the hikes were necessary to fund infrastructure upgrades, meet the state’s clean energy goals, and improve reliability.
Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins and the County Board of Legislators, intervenors in the rate case, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, announced that they “strongly” rejected the increases set forth in the “Joint Proposal.”
In their statement, they issued a different set of numbers than the WMC had in its announcement.
“Under the agreement, Con Edison would be permitted to raise electric rates by 4.3 percent, 5 percent and 3.3 percent annually from Jan. 1, 2026, through the end of 2028. Gas rates would decrease by 0.3 percent in 2026 and then increase in 2027 by 7.2 percent and 3.7 percent in 2028,” the county said.
“Families are already being stretched to the breaking point. Utility bills are skyrocketing while wages remain flat. We are hearing from seniors on fixed incomes, families juggling multiple jobs, and business owners barely staying afloat. A rate hike of this magnitude will force too many to choose between paying their utility bills and affording necessities like food, medicine, or childcare,” it added.
Jenkins and the board wanted to make it clear, however, that they believed “investing in infrastructure and clean energy is important.”
“We support a reliable grid and a sustainable future. But that future must be affordable. Con Edison cannot be allowed to continue passing their costs on to customers without full transparency, real justification, and measurable accountability,” it said, adding that they were reaffirming their commitment to “advocating for fair, transparent and equitable energy policies – ones that protect consumers and hold utilities accountable for efficient and responsible operations.”
“Any plan that asks residents to pay more must come with clear, measurable benefits – not just promises,” it said, urging the PSC to “reconsider this proposal, and work with local leaders to find solutions that do not further burden Westchester ratepayers.”
The WMC’s announcement touched on that topic.
Terms of the so-called “Joint Proposal” have been filed and are now public.
According to the WMC, they “represent significant progress for Westchester residents and businesses ensuring fairer and more transparent utility practices.”
The consortium said it won’t oppose the proposed agreement because it “substantially reduces” the initial rate proposals and also “includes several key provisions” regarding “longstanding disparities” and the improvement of “communication and transparency” that it had advanced.
According to the WMC, those provisions were:
• Annual Westchester Capital Investment Meetings: Con Edison leadership, including senior engineering and operations staff, will meet annually with Westchester municipalities to review capital project plans and compare investment levels in Westchester versus New York City. The meetings will also address storm preparedness, double -pole removal, streetlighting, and the impact of data centers on the local grid.
• Underground vs. Overhead Cost Analysis: Con Edison will conduct an informational analysis comparing the relative costs of its underground network system (predominant in New York City) and its overhead radial system (predominant in Westchester County and Staten Island). This study will help determine whether any cross-subsidization exists between regions and will be shared prior to the company’s next rate filing.
Parties to the case have three options: They can sign it. They can actively oppose it. Or they can oppose it AND ask for further testimony and information.
According to county Legislator Erika L. Pierce (D-District 2), while relieved that the “original crazy request” could be reduced, she and other county lawmakers “still think we need fundamental changes at the state level and more information in the settlement about the relative costs of delivering energy in the New York City area versus what we have in Westchester,” she explained.
PSC spokesman James Denn sent Halston Media the following statement on Wednesday, Nov. 12
“The joint proposal calls for a reduction in the Con Edison rates of nearly 87 percent from what was initially proposed by the utility. The joint proposal calls for a total bill increase in the first year that is below the rate of inflation and has the support of New York City, environmental and community advocates, and industry groups.”
He also noted that the proposal “submitted in the Con Edison electric and gas rate cases was either signed or not opposed by 16 parties in the proceeding.”
State Assemblyman Chris Burdick (D-District 93), who was actively involved as an “intervenor” in Con Ed’s as well as New York State Electric & Gas’s rate case, told Halston Media on Wednesday, Nov. 12, that he planned to oppose the settlement because the delivery charges were still “too high.”
“It’s all about affordability,” he said, adding that his first objective in intervening – and that of state Assemblywomen Dana Levenberg (D-District 95) and MaryJane Shimsky (D-District 92) – was to “represent our constituents as best we could.”
Their second mission was “to really get under the hood in order to understand how the rate process works,” said Burdick, who had called the proposed hikes “shocking and unconscionable.”
He has advocated for the PSC to not only reject the increases and has also pushed for legislative changes that would reform the rate-making system itself.
As it stands now that process is in Burdick’s eyes, “deficient,” “very black box” and “opaque.”
Burdick said his third objective had been to work “very closely” with the WMC with the goal of supporting environmental issues raised by the state’s green energy goals.
“Did we get everything we wanted? Absolutely not,” he noted, arguing however that it was important for folks to band together.
“We do feel, collectively, that our participation in the case moved the needle,” Burdick said.
And state Sen. Peter Harckham, (D-District 40), who was not an official intervenor but who has been following the action on behalf of constituents, sent this to Halston Media on Thursday, Nov. 13.
“For too many Con Ed ratepayers, the settlement increase of 7 percent over three years is still too much to ask. We should be talking zero right now. With $1.72 billion in profits so far in 2025, Con Ed should not be squeezing residents for more.”
Testifying at an in-person PSC hearing in Cortlandt Manor last July, Harckham called the Con Edison proposal “tone-deaf” and “out of touch” with reality.
“Many New Yorkers are already struggling to pay rent, buy groceries, and afford basic healthcare. Inflation has stretched household budgets thin and higher utility bills will be the breaking point for many families," he said.
Harckham said the rate increases will impact more than 368,000 customers in Westchester and more than 3.6 million in the metropolitan area.
PSC hearings were also held in White Plains.
Mount Kisco Village Trustee Tom Luzio had been among folks testifying in July at one of the in-person hearings held in Cortlandt Manor by the PSC.
Jenkins had been scheduled to speak but was held up in traffic and the PSC panel conducting the hearing declined to wait for him.
Jenkins, a vocal critic of the hikes, did make it to the one in White Plains.
“The proposed Con Edison rate increases are unfair, unaffordable and unacceptable,” he said there. “Families across Westchester are being pushed to the breaking point. Seniors on fixed incomes, working parents and small business owners cannot afford to pay more for an essential service while wages stay flat and inflation rises. Forcing people to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table is simply wrong.”
The WMC had hired attorney Joel Dichter of Dichter Law LLC to represent its interests before the PSC. Mount Kisco did not officially join the consortium.
Luzio told Halston Media last week that he was happy to learn that the proposed rate hike is significantly lower.
“Our fixed income seniors are a little bit better off thanks to this. My focus has always been on them. I thank all of the elected officials, Westchester County residents and the 40 other Westchester municipalities who fought for this on our behalf,” he said.
Luzio added that he didn’t think the proposed reduction would have been so substantial had that not happened.
County legislators held a public input session in September in Mount Kisco on the Con Ed situation. In October, it held a similar event in Somers on New York State Electric & Gas’s double-digit rate hike request, which was filed later than Con Ed's and is still in flux.
PSC officials had declined invitations to attend either BOL session, according to the county Legislature’s chairman, Vedat Gashi (D, District 4).
Speak Out
To submit a comment online about the Con Ed electric case 25-E-0072, visit the Department of Public Service’s website, www.dps.ny.gov, and then click on “Post Comments” button. To submit a comment about the gas case 25-G-0073, do the same.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here