On December 19, 2025, New York’s energy transition is colliding with a familiar reality: household bills. In the Finger Lakes, Ithaca officials are weighing how to protect residents from proposed utility rate increases while also keeping local climate policies on track. In the Hudson Valley, NYSEG is pointing to newly completed grid upgrades as proof that infrastructure spending is essential. And statewide, Governor Kathy Hochul’s decision to pause implementation of New York’s all-electric new-building requirements—pending court action—has forced cities, builders, and regulators into a holding pattern.
Together, the developments reveal the pressure points of New York’s climate and affordability agenda: who pays, how fast, and what happens when major rules change at the last minute.
NYSEG’s proposed rate hikes: what the filing would mean for customers
The immediate flashpoint is a major NYSEG rate case now before the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC). NYSEG is seeking a significant increase in annual electric delivery revenues—about $464.4 million—described as a 35% increase to delivery revenues for the rate year ending April 30, 2027. The utility estimates the request would translate to a $33.12 monthly increase (a 23.7% increase to the total bill) for a typical residential customer using 600 kWh. [1]
On the gas side, NYSEG is requesting roughly $93.0 million in additional annual gas revenues—described as a 39.4% increase to delivery revenues—which NYSEG estimates would mean a $33.57 monthly increase (a 33.5% increase to the total bill) for a typical residential heating customer using 83 therms. [2]
The filing is part of a broader set of major rate requests that also includes Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E). The Department of Public Service summary of the case highlights how these proceedings typically attract intervenors such as consumer advocates, public interest groups, and municipal officials—precisely the coalition that’s now mobilizing in NYSEG territory. [3]
Why NYSEG says it needs more money: reliability, service, and the clean-energy buildout
NYSEG and regulators often frame major rate filings around three big buckets: keeping the grid reliable, improving customer-facing systems, and preparing networks for electrification and renewable integration. The state’s summary of the NYSEG/RG&E cases describes “rate drivers” such as storm and vegetation management, uncollectible costs, and other “legacy” issues, as well as policy-related costs tied to customer support programs, grid modernization, and electrification-related investments. [4]
The same summary also describes “major initiatives” that include system resiliency (including vegetation management), customer-service upgrades (billing systems and online tools), and clean-energy programs to support solar interconnections, EV charging ports, and advanced metering infrastructure. [5]
That narrative—spend now to avoid outages later—has become central to how utilities justify investment-heavy rate plans in a state trying to electrify heating and transportation at scale.
Ithaca’s response: opposition in the rate case and concern over what’s being proposed
Ithaca, a city that has built its public brand around climate leadership, is now confronting the political and financial side of the transition.
In a December 2025 memo circulated through the City of Ithaca’s Sustainability & Climate Justice Commission, the city’s sustainability director noted that staff continue to participate in the NYSEG rate case and described “several concerning proposals” in the company’s request. The memo says city staff filed testimony and are coordinating with other stakeholders, while also noting that the next steps could head toward either an evidentiary hearing or a settlement track—similar to how recent rate cases have concluded. [6]
Public feedback across the service territory has also been sharply critical. During PSC hearings, customers and advocates have argued the scale of the proposed increases is unworkable for households already facing high energy burdens. A regional report on the hearings described “a stream of criticism” directed at the NYSEG request and noted that the utility proposal also raised alarms because it included closure of several walk-in offices, including in Ithaca and Oneonta. [7]
At an Ithaca-area public hearing earlier in the rate-case process, speakers criticized both affordability and reliability, underscoring the tension that haunts utility debates: customers say they’re paying more while also feeling they’re not consistently getting the service they expect. [8]
Advocates warn the hikes could deepen affordability problems—and clash with climate goals
Outside city government, consumer and climate advocates have been making a blunt case: ratepayers can’t shoulder another major jump.
A November 2025 report on the proposed NYSEG/RG&E increases quoted advocates arguing that large delivery-cost increases could worsen financial strain and raise questions about how utilities are prioritizing investments—especially as New York tries to reduce fossil fuel dependence. The report also pointed to arrears data and described concerns about incentives for continued gas-system spending, while including NYSEG’s response that rate filings are an opening position in a negotiation and that final approved increases often differ from initial requests. [9]
This is the backdrop for Ithaca’s posture in December: pushing back in the rate case while simultaneously trying to keep long-term building decarbonization policies alive—even as the state’s own rulebook changes.
Hochul’s pause on the All-Electric Buildings Act reshapes the playing field
While the rate case plays out, a separate decision in Albany has complicated the decarbonization roadmap.
New York’s All-Electric Buildings Act—aimed at restricting fossil-fuel equipment in most new buildings—has been tied up in litigation and political controversy. In November 2025, reporting described how New York State agreed to delay implementation and enforcement of the law while an appellate court considers a challenge from trade groups and others, despite a lower court ruling that rejected key legal arguments against the state’s authority. [10]
To builders, municipalities, and code officials, this isn’t an abstract legal fight. It determines what rules apply to projects that are being designed right now.
A state notice posted by the New York State Education Department—focused on the Uniform Code and State Energy Code—summarized the real-world consequence. The state said the 2025 Energy Code takes effect on December 31, 2025, but the provisions that prohibit installation of fossil-fuel equipment in new buildings have been suspended by court order and are “neither effective nor enforceable.” [11]
In other words: the updated code framework is arriving, but one of its most politically charged elements—restrictions on fossil-fuel systems in new construction—has been put on ice.
Climate groups condemn the delay and warn of lost momentum
Environmental and climate-focused organizations have responded to the pause with anger, warning the delay could slow progress and create uncertainty that benefits fossil fuel interests.
In a statement reacting to New York’s decision to delay implementation of the all-electric building law, Earthjustice criticized the move and framed it as a setback for both affordability and climate protections, arguing that electrification of new buildings is a long-term cost and pollution reducer. [12]
The Building Decarbonization Coalition similarly highlighted that state code officials had already spent years preparing for implementation and had approved updated codes earlier in 2025, portraying the delay as both disruptive and unnecessary. [13]
Local and state political reaction has also been intense. Reporting in New York City media captured the frustration among some lawmakers and advocates who argue that a pattern of delays risks derailing the state’s climate commitments. [14]
Ithaca halts near-term net-zero code changes after the state’s “all-electric” delay
Few places illustrate the ripple effects of Albany’s pause more clearly than Ithaca.
For years, Ithaca has pursued some of the most aggressive municipal climate policies in New York. The city’s Energy Code Supplement, adopted earlier in the decade, set a trajectory toward net-zero construction—an effort the city has promoted as both an emissions strategy and a way to lock in efficient, future-ready buildings. [15]
But in December 2025, city staff acknowledged that state-level changes have “thrown us for a bit of a loop.”
In the city’s Sustainability & Climate Justice Commission memo, officials explained that staff had been working for roughly 18 months on updating the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. The plan had been to adopt New York’s 2025 Energy Conservation Construction Code (for existing buildings) plus two net-zero appendices for new construction—and the state code included provisions aligned with the All-Electric Buildings Act. [16]
Then came the disruption: “Days before the City was slated to adopt the new code,” the memo says, the governor decided to delay the all-electric buildings requirements, which also paused the “no fossil fuel” provisions embedded in the state framework. City staff warned that moving ahead under those circumstances could create enforcement problems and legal overlap between the city’s local code approach and the statewide uniform code. [17]
Ithaca’s solution was a delay of its own. The memo states that the city, working with its attorney’s office, submitted an ordinance to extend the 2023 version of the Ithaca Energy Code Supplement until July 1, 2026, while staff monitor state actions and prepare revisions in case the statewide all-electric requirements are permanently paused. [18]
In practical terms, the move buys time—protecting Ithaca from rewriting and enforcing a code regime that could be undercut by ongoing litigation or state reversal.
NYSEG’s North Brewster reinforcement project shows the other side of the debate: infrastructure upgrades are real
While ratepayers and municipalities contest the bill impact, NYSEG has been emphasizing projects meant to improve reliability—especially in regions facing growth, electrification, and severe weather.
In the Hudson Valley, NYSEG announced the completion of the final phase of its North Brewster Reinforcement Project, citing investments at the utility’s Amenia substation and facilities in Pawling and Dover Plains to improve reliability and capacity. [19]
The utility said the project includes installation of a new transformer intended to reduce voltage levels and support “efficient and safe transmission, distribution, and use of electricity,” while also enhancing reliability for customers served by the substation and surrounding areas. [20]
NYSEG President Marc Geaumont framed the work as part of the obligation to meet rising demand: “As upstate New York’s population and economy grow, it’s our job to ensure that we’re able to meet the new energy demands that are being placed on the grid,” he said in the announcement. [21]
He also said that since 2023, NYSEG has invested more than $378 million in projects aimed at keeping power on, reinforcing the grid against severe storms, and preparing for future needs. [22]
This is the central paradox of New York’s moment: grid upgrades are a prerequisite for electrification and reliability—yet the cost of those upgrades is landing on customers who are increasingly resistant to bill increases.
What happens next: three decision points to watch
New York’s energy story isn’t waiting for one single verdict. Several parallel tracks will determine what “affordability vs. climate” looks like in 2026.
1) The NYSEG rate case path: Ithaca officials say the proceeding could move toward either evidentiary hearings or settlement negotiations, and the city is already participating with testimony and coordination. [23]
2) The fate of the all-electric building rules: New York’s 2025 code suite is taking effect, but the fossil-fuel prohibitions in new construction remain suspended under a court order, according to the state notice. [24]
3) Municipal policy stability: Ithaca’s decision to extend its existing energy code supplement until mid-2026 signals how local climate leaders may respond when state frameworks shift—by preserving current standards and waiting for clearer statewide direction before locking in new enforcement regimes. [25]
The bigger picture: New York’s energy transition enters its “governance” phase
For years, the debate over electrification could be framed as a technology story—heat pumps, induction stoves, EV chargers, new building standards. By late 2025, it looks more like a governance story.
When a statewide rule is paused, cities like Ithaca must decide whether to advance, delay, or rewrite local climate codes. When utilities ask for large rate increases, officials must decide whether the investment plans justify the bill impacts—and whether the PSC can thread the needle between reliability, modernization, and affordability.
References
1. dps.ny.gov, 2. dps.ny.gov, 3. dps.ny.gov, 4. dps.ny.gov, 5. dps.ny.gov, 6. www.cityofithaca.org, 7. www.wskg.org, 8. www.cornellsun.com, 9. cbs6albany.com, 10. www.timesunion.com, 11. www.nysed.gov, 12. earthjustice.org, 13. buildingdecarb.org, 14. gothamist.com, 15. www.cityofithaca.org, 16. www.cityofithaca.org, 17. www.cityofithaca.org, 18. www.cityofithaca.org, 19. midhudsonnews.com, 20. midhudsonnews.com, 21. midhudsonnews.com, 22. midhudsonnews.com, 23. www.cityofithaca.org, 24. www.nysed.gov, 25. www.cityofithaca.org
