To: Elected Officials representing New York City

From: Patrick Robbins, Utility Customers Association

Re: Protect utility customers from the Con Ed battery moratorium

Date: July 17, 2026

Dear Representatives:

You may have seen coverage of the fight over Con Ed’s battery moratorium in the news. On behalf of roughly 3 million Con Ed customers in New York City, I want to lay out the stakes of the Con Ed battery fight and briefly explain why this conflict matters to everyone who pays an electricity bill in NYC.

Background: What is the Con Ed battery moratorium?

Like other electricity providers (gas plants, solar farms, etc.), battery facilities send electricity to the grid when we need it. They bid against other electricity suppliers to provide cheaper electricity. In order to do that, they need an interconnection agreement with the utility.

Last fall, Con Edison suddenly increased interconnection fees for battery developers in much of New York City, in some cases asking for 30 or 40 times what the utility had previously charged. Suddenly, the numbers stopped penciling out for battery developers and many companies that were planning to build batteries in NYC halted their plans.

Con Edison says that it continues to support battery storage, but in practice has suddenly made it functionally impossible to build battery storage in most of the city. 

The question of whether Con Ed is allowed to charge these prohibitive fees is now before the Public Service Commission. Technically the “conflict” before the PSC is between Con Edison and the battery developers. In reality, the outcome matters deeply for all households who pay Con Ed bills in New York City, and we want you to understand how.

Why It Matters for Consumers: Batteries Lower Bills

Con Ed customers like us pay for electricity in two ways: supply charges (which pay the company making the electricity) and distribution charges (which pay the utility for investing in infrastructure). Our monthly bills include both those costs.

Batteries can help lower both of those costs for consumers. 

Batteries reduce supply charges by providing a cheaper way of supplying electricity during the hottest hours of the year, when New Yorkers pay exorbitant fees for dirty peaker plants to run. Batteries can supply electricity at cheaper cost than many fossil fuel power plants, particularly on summer days when the grid is strained and New Yorkers pay extra.

Batteries can also lower distribution charges by storing and providing electricity locally, which alleviates the need to build as much long-distance transmission, and, depending on where they are sited, can also alleviate the need to build other infrastructure like substations and transformers. Customers pay for all that infrastructure, plus a profit for Con Ed, so we save on our bills whenever we can avoid building it. Of course, Con Ed loses profit when that infrastructure is not needed.

Next Steps: We Need Governor Hochul to Step In

Right now, the case before the Public Service Commission is between the utility (Con Ed) and the battery developers. But left out of that fight is the public: the 3 million Con Ed customers in New York City who are paying too much for electricity. We need our elected leaders to take action to lower costs wherever possible.

Governor Hochul should step in, through the Public Service Commission, to require Con Ed to back off its de facto battery moratorium in New York City. The Governor must forge an agreement where we can add as many batteries to the grid as possible, as quickly as possible, to provide relief from these high energy bills, especially at peak times like summer heat waves.

We want you to be aware of the issue and to ask for your help advocating on behalf of utility customers to Governor Hochul and to the Public Service Commission she appoints, asking the Governor to protect customers, not utilities, this summer.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at patrick@utilitycustomers.org to learn more or to discuss ways you can support utility customers in this conflict.