Blame NY Democrats’ Extreme Climate Agenda for Con Ed’s Significant Rate Increases

Governor Kathy Hochul’s costly environmental aspirations are colliding with her “affordability” initiative — the latest blow comes from significant increases in Con Ed rates.

The utility is seeking approval from the state to raise electric bills by an average of 11.4% and gas bills by 13.3%, which could push total monthly bills to $500. Ouch.

These increases follow years of similarly painful rate hikes, largely attributed to the state’s absurd campaign against fossil fuels under the guise of controlling global temperatures.

Hochul has intensified the agenda initiated by former Governor Andrew Cuomo, launching a full-scale assault on oil and gas that includes halting new pipelines; constructing expensive wind turbines, charging stations, and other infrastructures; fining energy companies for past emissions; banning new gas appliances (such as stoves) and heating systems, and so on.

Moreover, Cuomo pushed for the closure of the Indian Point nuclear facility — cutting off a key source of reliable, 100%-clean electricity.

Mandates for electric stoves, heating, and vehicles increase the demand for electricity, while obstructing new fossil-fuel power plants limits the supply.

Furthermore, the extensive new green-energy infrastructure required by the “climate” plan isn’t cheap: Offshore windmills and solar facilities incur high costs, and necessitate new transmission lines and electric-storage systems that rely on technologies not yet developed.

Ultimately, most of these expenses fall upon utilities, which have no choice but to pass them along to customers.

The result is entirely predictable: Consumers face the brunt of the costs.

And this is just the beginning.

As the Empire Center’s Ken Girardin noted last year, Albany’s nearly $300 billion price tag for its 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act could potentially escalate to as much as $1 trillion.

Who does Hochul expect will cover that expense?

Mexico?

In addition, property taxes make up 25% of Con Ed’s costs — which again gets passed on to you-know-who.

Yet Hochul’s entire anti-warming campaign won’t even bring about a detectable decrease in the Earth’s temperature.

So what’s the point?

Recent polling by the Empire Center illustrates how New Yorkers feel about the green agenda’s climate struggle: A significant majority (59%) believe the state’s efforts to cut emissions mustn’t increase energy costs, even if it means slow progress toward lower carbon emissions.

Another 20% are in favor of the state doing “everything it can” to reduce energy costs, even if it leads to higher emissions.

Hochul understands the predicament: Voters are irate over New York’s rising cost of living, prompting her to promote an “affordability” agenda as she prepares for her reelection campaign next year.

However, her green initiatives are exacerbating the state’s lack of affordability.

Her response thus far?

Attempt to postpone the consequences until after the election and hope voters remain oblivious.

For instance, she recently postponed a “cap-and-invest” initiative that would impose additional costs on New Yorkers, similar to how she delayed her congestion-pricing toll until after the November election to support fellow Democrats.

Perhaps she’ll find a way to block Con Ed’s hefty proposal . . . for now.

But unless she completely abandons the climate agenda, the financial strain is bound to continue.