President Donald Trump and Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani appeared united in their push to curb rising energy rates, marking a rare instance where two political leaders with differing views found common ground. At the Consolidated Edison Building, they expressed frustration over Con Edison's rate hikes, with Trump stating that fuel prices have decreased but rates haven't kept pace.
"This isn't right," Trump said. "We've gotten fuel prices way down, but it hasn't shown up in Con Edison." Mamdani concurred, emphasizing the need for the city utility giant to lower its rates.
However, just a day before their meeting, Con Edison had secured approval from New York state for rate hikes starting in 2026. The increases will amount to about a $4 monthly increase next year, with gas rates projected to rise by an average of $10.67 per month, up from the original proposal that would have raised gas bills by 13% or nearly $47 per month.
Con Edison's new rate hike plan is significantly lower than the utility's original request, which was met with widespread opposition following a record 20,000 public comments. The Public Service Commission reduced Con Ed's requested revenue increases by around 60% for gas and 34% for electricity, citing affordability concerns.
Despite initial resistance from various groups, including some who opposed energy rate hikes altogether, others welcomed the new rates as part of efforts to balance reliability with customer costs. This includes organizations like the Alliance for a Green Economy, the City of New York, and Amtrak.
However, many New Yorkers, particularly those struggling with skyrocketing utility bills, have voiced outrage over the rate hikes. Critics argue that Con Edison's high profits – which rose by 66% over the last decade – justify lower rates, while others point to outdated infrastructure costs that contribute to rising expenses.
"We're already facing incredible pressure on our energy budgets," said Eli Lind, an Astoria resident. "This isn't an optional expense – it's a fundamental necessity." As New York City continues to grapple with affordability and reliability issues, the push for lower energy rates may prove crucial in mitigating public discontent.
"This isn't right," Trump said. "We've gotten fuel prices way down, but it hasn't shown up in Con Edison." Mamdani concurred, emphasizing the need for the city utility giant to lower its rates.
However, just a day before their meeting, Con Edison had secured approval from New York state for rate hikes starting in 2026. The increases will amount to about a $4 monthly increase next year, with gas rates projected to rise by an average of $10.67 per month, up from the original proposal that would have raised gas bills by 13% or nearly $47 per month.
Con Edison's new rate hike plan is significantly lower than the utility's original request, which was met with widespread opposition following a record 20,000 public comments. The Public Service Commission reduced Con Ed's requested revenue increases by around 60% for gas and 34% for electricity, citing affordability concerns.
Despite initial resistance from various groups, including some who opposed energy rate hikes altogether, others welcomed the new rates as part of efforts to balance reliability with customer costs. This includes organizations like the Alliance for a Green Economy, the City of New York, and Amtrak.
However, many New Yorkers, particularly those struggling with skyrocketing utility bills, have voiced outrage over the rate hikes. Critics argue that Con Edison's high profits – which rose by 66% over the last decade – justify lower rates, while others point to outdated infrastructure costs that contribute to rising expenses.
"We're already facing incredible pressure on our energy budgets," said Eli Lind, an Astoria resident. "This isn't an optional expense – it's a fundamental necessity." As New York City continues to grapple with affordability and reliability issues, the push for lower energy rates may prove crucial in mitigating public discontent.
. Trump and Mamdani may have different views, but they're both coming from a place of wanting to make a positive change. And that's what matters - not about who's right or wrong, but about finding common ground and working together 
. It's like the saying goes (just kidding, I'm not one of those quote-people 
), when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. In this case, Con Edison has made a compromise that might not be perfect, but it's a start 
. And who knows, maybe it'll lead to even better solutions in the future!
. I get that they need money to fix their infrastructure but it feels like they're just cashing out on us customers. I mean Trump and Zohran are on the same page here which is cool, but what's the real plan? are they gonna actually lower those rates or just promise to? it's not like we haven't seen this before, rate hikes, promises of change... nothing ever happens 
. I'm all for balance between reliability and customer costs, but when you're talking $4 monthly increase that adds up quick, it's still a hike no matter what they call it 
.
? And by the way, 60% reduction in rate hikes doesn't sound like a whole lot to me...I'd say that's more of a PR stunt than actual reform 
!
they're probably just trying to cover up their own inefficiencies & outdated infrastructure costs... meanwhile, trump & mamdani are just playing politics 
. And don't even get me started on that 60% reduction in revenue increases – sounds like a sweet deal for Con Edison, but what about the people who can't afford it? 
I'm not buying it 
Trump is right that fuel prices have dropped but Con Ed's rates haven't kept pace - it's a weird situation. I mean, who wouldn't want lower energy bills? 
. I mean, they're not making a killing off of these new rate hikes, only $4 more per month 
. Meanwhile, customers are still stuck paying through the nose, especially those struggling to make ends meet 
. The city's infrastructure costs are outdated, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that Con Edison is raking it in 
. Like, you gotta feel for Con Edison, right? They're just trying to keep up with expenses, but at the same time, they're basically screwing over their customers who are already struggling to make ends meet 
. And don't even get me started on the infrastructure costs – that's just a fancy way of saying they've been playing catch-up for decades 
.
. I mean, come on, if you're gonna complain about rates, at least have the decency to agree on something 
. The Alliance for a Green Economy and all that jazz seem to be trying to balance out the reliability costs with customer concerns. That's a pretty noble goal 
. But still, can't we just have one unified front on this issue? 
...but atleast it's not as bad as orginally proposed...guess the Public Service Commission had a hand in bringing down those costs 
Energy bills are gonna be through the roof this year 
.
.
. and don't even get me started on the gas prices 
. it's like they're just cashing in on our desperation.
. but honestly, it's all just a bunch of lip service 
. and yeah, those original rate hikes were whack 
. 60% reduction? that's still too high for me 
