New York faces an affordability crisis that is deepening hardship in communities across the region. As the stock market reaches record highs, corporations and their executives reap record profits, while a record number of households are cutting back on food, medicine, and other essentials to pay their utility bills and avoid shutoffs.
That’s why, after a 36% rise in National Grid gas bills over the past three years, New Yorkers understandably welcomed National Grid’s recent announcement that it wants to freeze gas delivery charges (the largest portion of most National Grid bills, used to pay for gas infrastructure) until March 2028.
But the announcement of its request for a rate freeze was surprising. They were expected to submit a proposal for a multi-year rate increase in April; instead, they filed a complex request for a rate freeze at the end of May.
Ostensibly, National Grid has finally heeded the laser focus on cost-of-living concerns that have helped politicians like Mayor Zohran Mamdani resonate with local residents. Governor Kathy Hochul also appears to be singing from the same songbook, but it’s not lost on us that this sudden rate hike freeze is coming during an election year.
Yes, a rate freeze will spare customers an increase next year in delivery charges, but with National Grid’s $15 million lobbying investment in Albany, it begs the question: if National Grid previously claimed that exorbitant rate hikes were so urgent, how can increases all of a sudden be avoided now? And what will rate hikes in the non-election years following the freeze look like?
Sane Energy Project reviewed National Grid’s petition to the Public Service Commission, the state’s utility watchdog, and the 109 pages of fine print attached to the company’s proposal.
In its request, the company aims to freeze the costs of current delivery charges through March 2028. But buried in the fine print are requests to create tracking mechanisms, future cost deferrals, and surcharges that could allow National Grid to recoup some of those expenses later.
New Yorkers need to know: which costs are delayed today, and who will pay them tomorrow?
National Grid wants regulators to approve this proposal quickly to avoid a process that guarantees transparency and accountability. In a typical rate case, which is how utilities ask regulators to let them change customer rates, individuals and organizations can file to participate in negotiations. New Yorkers deserve the opportunity to scrutinize plans that affect millions of households and shape the future of our energy system.
Also to note, is that a freeze on delivery charges is not the same as a freeze on utility bills. As construction on the Williams NESE Pipeline is slated to begin, New Yorkers could still see supply charges rise to cover additional fracked gas entering National Grid’s system – potentially erasing any relief and being justified for supporting data centers that do not yet exist.
Until fairly recently, National Grid faced limited public scrutiny and benefited from years of relatively closed-door rate case negotiations. Throughout most of the 2010s, only a handful of ratepayer advocacy organizations fought on behalf of the public. That began to change in 2019, when a large coalition of Brooklyn residents filed to participate in National Grid’s rate case after the company lied about supply constraints and sent alerts urging customers to lobby in favor of the Williams NESE pipeline during the project’s second application, after New York denied the first proposal in 2018.
Then, real transparency was won.
By participating in that rate case, we learned that National Grid built the first three sections of the North Brooklyn Pipeline without adequate opportunities for public input. After that revelation, tens of thousands of concerned New Yorkers submitted public comments, making clear that ratepayers across New York City and Long Island were paying attention. That pressure helped stop the North Brooklyn Pipeline and costly, toxic expansions at the LNG facility in Greenpoint.
New Yorkers deserve a thorough review process and honest answers to these questions now. Is National Grid’s request for a freeze meant to provide genuine relief, or is it merely a temporary pause before large increases are levied later? And is their proposal a cynical cover-up of hidden costs under the guise of professed empathy for New Yorkers struggling to pay their bills?
New Yorkers need affordable energy. We need solutions that protect the planet and reduce our dependence on expensive fossil fuels. And we deserve a regulatory process grounded in transparency.
We don’t expect that National Grid would grant us that decency, so we must fight for it by filing comments during the Public Service Commission review process.
New Yorkers shouldn’t pay more money for their energy bills in the long run, but we will be paying attention.
Kim Fraczek is director of Sane Energy Project, where she has spent 15 years organizing to replace fracked gas infrastructure with democratically controlled renewable energy in New York State through grassroots campaigns grounded in justice.
