CLP Opposes the Proposed Central Hudson Rate Increase and the Joint Proposal
Based on the document that emerged as a result of settlement negotiations, CLP does not support the Joint Proposal (“JP”). We have appreciated the opportunity to participate as a Party and to present our case during the settlement process and in this document.
CLP raises objections to specific provisions of the current JP. We enumerate our problems with the JP’s terms in the following areas:
An overall increase that is too high, threatening low- and middle-income customers – and potentially others, as well – with default and termination;
Managerial salary increases that are undeserved and out of line with inflation;
Gas leak-prone pipe replacements that aim to preserve and profit from a system that should be slated for reduction and removal;
Inadequate response to the requirements of New York’s CLCPA;
Lack of clarity on the Company’s financial relationship to Fortis, specifically as regards “overhead” payments to the Canadian multinational that acquired Central Hudson in 2013.
On May 13th Central Hudson said that a multi-year settlement between Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. and regulators, if approved, would raise the average customer’s electric and gas bills each year for three years. From 2025-2027 they would be receiving a total increase of 16.1 percent for electric and 26.5 percent for gas. This is after they just received an over 7% rate hike in 2024.
Currently, Central Hudson’s reports in April 2025, a total of 50,019 residential customer accounts were 60 days or more in arrears. This means that – despite the considerable efforts being made to address energy affordability through legislative funding and statewide attention to special programs available to EAP customers – nearly 16 percent of the Central Hudson’s estimated 315,000 residential customers (1) were in arrears in April. This contrasts with approximately 10 percent of Con Edison’s estimated 3,600,000 residential customers or 9 percent of NYSEG’s estimated 1,175,000 residential customers who were 60 days or more in arrears as of April 2025 (2).
In CLP’s opinion, the Company’s managers do not deserve the 4 percent increase in their salaries that the JP proposes. Less than a year ago, in July 2024, the same non-union management and executive employees received a 4 percent wage increase at the expense of ratepayers. The JP recommends a similar increase. We disagree. The cumulative rate increases approved for the two-year period are materially undeserved and out of line with inflation, which currently stands at 2.4 percent.
The JP includes significant capital expenses to cover the cost of “leak-prone pipe” removals and replacement. However, the current program being implemented by the Company is not predicated on any actual leaks, nor does it permanently remove the pipe. Replacing the entire gas pipeline system with new and better gas pipelines, costing an average of $4.3 million per mile and a total cost of $34-$65 billion for the state (3), is emphatically not the solution.
Without the above issues outlined in this opposition brief being addressed, CLP cannot in good conscience support this JP and urges the PSC to modify the JP to address the above issues.
Specifically, the PSC should:
Lower the rate increase approved for Central Hudson to help reduce the 16 percent of customers who are in arrears.
Limit managerial salary increases to be in line with the current 2.4% inflation rate.
Provide additional oversight to ensure compliance with the CLCPA by increasing the company’s efforts to remove gas infrastructure and transition to geothermal, renewable energy sources, and other methods to reduce the investment in “leak-prone pipes.”
It is within the PSC’s power to make these modifications that protect the rate payers in the Company’s service territory and we urge the PSC to use their mandated authority to protect the public good.
1) Central Hudson, “Our Service Territory,” https://www.cenhud.com/en/about-us/our-service-territory/
2) Case 91-M-0744, April 2025 Reports from Central Hudson, Con Edison, and NYSEG
3) Switchbox, “Targeted Electrification in New York State: An Alternative to Leak-Prone Pipeline Replacement,” www.switch.box/lpp
Read the full Brief of Opposition filed in the rate case here.