Published
July 11, 2026
If you pay a Con Edison electric or gas bill in New York City or Westchester, four separate 2026 developments touch your rates and your rights — a customer refund, a new three-year rate plan, a workplace settlement, and two lawsuits over how the utility bills and treats people.
Why Con Edison Is Under a Microscope Right Now
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. — Con Edison, or CECONY — is the utility that delivers electricity and gas to most of New York City and Westchester County. In 2026 the company sits at the intersection of several separate stories: a state penalty over how it handled renewable energy credits, a newly approved three-year rate plan, a workplace-discrimination settlement with the New York Attorney General, and two lawsuits — one over gas billing, one over an employee's firing. This page pulls those threads together from public records so you can see what each one is, and whether there is anything for a customer or worker to act on.None of these items is a single scandal; together they sketch the regulatory and legal pressure a large regulated utility operates under. We stick to what the public filings and agency announcements actually say, and we flag where an allegation is just that — an allegation not yet decided by a court.
The $4.3 Million Renewable Energy Credit Penalty
On November 14, 2025, the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) adopted a settlement resolving an enforcement matter over Con Edison's accounting for renewable energy credits (RECs). The state's Department of Public Service Office of Investigations and Enforcement had opened the review in 2024, focused on the Value of Distributed Energy Resources (VDER) program — New York's mechanism for compensating clean-energy producers such as community solar developers for the value they add to the grid.According to the PSC, Con Edison failed to timely register certain VDER Tier 1 projects in the New York Generation Attribute Tracking System (NYGATS) for the years 2017 through 2023, and incorrectly registered other projects between 2018 and 2023. The registration gaps meant the utility made unnecessary Alternative Compliance Payments to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to meet its annual clean-energy targets, while the misregistration suppressed the value of the compliance attributes it was entitled to count.
The settlement carries a total financial consequence of $4,313,944, split so that customers are made whole for administrative errors while shareholders absorb the penalty:
• Roughly $4,113,944 is restored to customers through a Clean Energy Standard surcharge credit — about $3,989,758 for the unnecessary compliance payments plus about $124,186 for the suppressed value of misregistered projects.
• A $200,000 penalty is funded exclusively by shareholders and paid to the New York State treasury, with interest at the company's pre-tax rate of return, within 30 days of the Commission's approval.
The customer credits are being applied across approximately 3.3 million affected utility accounts, with billing credits scheduled to begin no later than 2026. To prevent a repeat, the PSC required Con Edison to strengthen its internal controls and to file semi-annual status reports in Case 25-E-0638 from December 31, 2025 through June 30, 2027; the company submitted its first report at the end of December 2025.
The 2026–2028 Rate Plan
On January 22, 2026, the PSC approved a three-year rate plan for Con Edison under Cases 25-E-0072 (electric) and 25-G-0073 (gas), covering January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2028. This is the framework that sets how much the utility can collect for delivering electricity and gas, and it is the item that most directly shows up on customer bills.Con Edison's original filings, submitted January 31, 2025, sought far larger first-year increases — on the order of $1.611 billion in additional annual electric delivery revenue and $440 million in gas delivery revenue for 2026. After intervention by consumer advocates, state agencies, and municipal coalitions, the parties reached a joint proposal that the Commission approved. Regulators describe the result as avoiding more than $7 billion in increases over the three years compared with the utility's unshaped initial request, using a "shaped" structure that spreads and smooths the impact rather than front-loading a single large jump.
The approved plan is built on an authorized return on equity of 9.40% and a common equity ratio of 48.00%, with an earnings-sharing mechanism that returns a portion of any earnings above 9.90% back to customers. Because the order was approved on January 22, 2026 and rates took effect February 1, 2026, regulators also approved a "make-whole" adjustment affecting early-2026 bills. The settlement also expands the Energy Affordability Program for lower-income customers; the utility reports that program distributed $311 million in discounts in 2024.
Suburban customers were a specific focus. The Westchester Municipal Consortium secured provisions aimed at longstanding cost differences between suburban Westchester and denser New York City service, including annual capital-review meetings and a cost-of-service study distinguishing "network" (largely NYC underground) from "non-network" (largely overhead) facilities — an analysis meant to test whether suburban customers subsidize the higher cost of urban underground networks.
Clean Energy and Interconnection Friction
The rate plan sits inside New York's broader decarbonization push under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Con Edison is required to replace 76 miles of leak-prone gas pipe over the plan's term to cut methane emissions, and it agreed to scale back some clean-energy proposals — building two of four proposed distribution-level battery projects, and withdrawing a proposal to develop 1,000 megawatts of utility-owned solar after independent power producers opposed related legislation.Clean-energy developers, meanwhile, have raised concerns about how the utility studies battery storage interconnection. Under an engineering screen sometimes called the "Two-Part Test," a proposed battery project whose overnight charging would create a new local peak or push a substation above 70% of its design capacity can be assigned a share of upgrade costs. Intervenors including the Utility Intervention Unit and the New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium have said the approach contributed to roughly 25 cancelled projects and dozens more identified as at risk — figures the intervenors put forward, and a debate that remains active before regulators rather than a resolved finding.
The $750,000 Attorney General Workplace Settlement
On March 25, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a settlement with Con Edison resolving an investigation, opened in 2021 under New York Executive Law section 63(12), into a hostile work environment for employees in unionized, non-traditional field positions. The Office of the Attorney General found that the utility failed to adequately address race- and sex-based harassment, that women made up less than 17% of the field workforce between 2019 and 2022 (with some locations having none), and that female field workers faced obstacles in promotions and a disproportionate share of discipline.The Attorney General's office also described instances of severe racial harassment of Black employees. These findings come from the state's investigation and the resulting Assurance of Discontinuance; they resolve the matter through agreed reforms rather than an adjudication of liability in court.
The settlement provides $750,000 in restitution earmarked for 17 affected workers, and puts in place a multi-year compliance structure: a three-year term, retention of an independent consultant, periodic bi-annual progress reports, and reforms to the company's internal equal-employment-opportunity investigation procedures — including separating complainants from respondents during investigations where possible, revising investigation handbooks and training, and allowing localized climate assessments at work locations with elevated complaints.
Burke v. Con Edison: A Disability Discrimination Case Heads to Post-Trial Motions
Separate from the systemic investigation, Con Edison has been defending an individual employment suit, Burke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02111, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before Judge Dale E. Ho. The plaintiff, a former Emergency Gas Troubleshooter, brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State and City human rights laws after physical injuries left him unable to perform the job's demanding physical tasks, which led to the end of his employment in that role.On September 19, 2025, Judge Ho granted in part and denied in part Con Edison's motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the termination and race-discrimination claims, finding the plaintiff could not perform the essential physical functions of the Gas Troubleshooter position. But it allowed the failure-to-accommodate claims to proceed, holding that a jury should decide whether the company met its obligation to explore whether the plaintiff could have been reassigned to a vacant clerical position.
The case went to a federal jury trial in May 2026, concluding on May 19, 2026. Afterward, the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, and on June 22, 2026 Judge Ho set a briefing schedule with the company's opposition due July 20, 2026 and the plaintiff's reply due July 27, 2026. As of this writing the motion is pending — the outcome is not final, and readers should check the docket for the current status.
S.A.M. Management v. Con Edison: The Gas Rate Class Action That Was Dismissed
The consumer-facing lawsuit here is S.A.M. Management Co., Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03494, filed April 29, 2022 in the Southern District of New York and represented by the firm Milberg. The proposed class of commercial and residential building owners and managers alleged that Con Edison systematically overcharged customers by billing them under a higher gas rate classification than its tariff allowed.The complaint alleged that mixed-use residential buildings with small auxiliary commercial spaces — resident laundries, parking garages, or management offices that were not separately metered — were assigned to the more expensive Service Classification No. 3 (SC-3) instead of the generally cheaper Service Classification No. 2 (SC-2). Plaintiffs alleged the utility profited from the misclassification and, even after correcting some accounts, did not refund past overcharges. The claims included alleged violations of New York General Business Law section 349, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. These were allegations; the case was resolved on a threshold jurisdictional question before any of them was decided on the merits.
On September 11, 2023, District Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Con Edison's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The court reasoned that interpreting technical utility tariff classifications falls within the specialized expertise of the New York Public Service Commission, that broad judicial rulings could disrupt statewide regulatory uniformity, and that customers must first pursue the PSC's own complaint process before turning to federal court. The practical takeaway for a building owner who believes they were billed under the wrong classification is that the tariff-complaint path runs through the PSC, not a class action in federal court.
So Is There Anything to Claim?
For most readers, the honest answer is no — there is no open consumer claim form tied to these matters. The REC billing credits are applied automatically to roughly 3.3 million affected accounts, so eligible customers do not need to file anything to receive them. The Attorney General's $750,000 restitution is earmarked for 17 specific workers, not a public class. The gas-rate class action was dismissed, redirecting those disputes to the PSC's tariff-complaint process. And the Burke case is an individual employment suit still in post-trial motions.What ties the pieces together is a picture of a large regulated utility navigating decarbonization mandates, rate scrutiny, and workplace and billing disputes at the same time. Statuses can change — dockets move, and regulatory reporting continues into 2027 — so treat this as a snapshot and confirm current details with the primary sources below.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Con Edison penalized $4.3 million by the Public Service Commission?
On November 14, 2025, the New York State Public Service Commission adopted a settlement resolving an enforcement matter over how Con Edison accounted for and registered renewable energy credits (RECs) under the Value of Distributed Energy Resources (VDER) program. Regulators found the utility failed to timely register certain VDER Tier 1 projects in the state tracking system for 2017 through 2023 and misregistered others. The $4.313 million total is made up of about $4.11 million restored to customers and a $200,000 penalty paid by shareholders to the state.
Will Con Edison customers get money back from the REC settlement?
Yes. Under the settlement, roughly $4.11 million is being restored to customers through a Clean Energy Standard surcharge credit, applied across approximately 3.3 million affected utility accounts, with billing credits scheduled to begin no later than 2026. The separate $200,000 penalty is funded by company shareholders and paid to the state, not recovered from ratepayers.
What did the 2026–2028 Con Edison rate case decide?
On January 22, 2026, the Public Service Commission approved a three-year joint proposal (Cases 25-E-0072 and 25-G-0073) setting Con Edison's electric and gas delivery rates for 2026 through 2028. Regulators approved "shaped" increases smaller than the utility's original request; the settlement is described as avoiding more than $7 billion in increases over three years compared with the initial filing. Rates took effect February 1, 2026, with an authorized return on equity of 9.40% and a 48% common equity ratio.
What was the New York Attorney General's Con Edison settlement about?
On March 25, 2025, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement resolving an investigation into a hostile work environment for employees in non-traditional field positions. The Attorney General's office found the company failed to adequately address race- and sex-based harassment and identified disparities in promotions and discipline. The settlement includes $750,000 in restitution for 17 affected workers and an Assurance of Discontinuance requiring reforms overseen for three years.
Is there an open class action settlement I can file a claim in against Con Edison?
No. As described here, there is no open consumer claim form. The S.A.M. Management gas-rate class action was dismissed in 2023 on primary-jurisdiction grounds, the Attorney General's $750,000 restitution is earmarked for 17 specific workers, and the REC billing credits are applied automatically to affected accounts — there is nothing for the general public to file. Statuses can change, so check the court dockets and the Public Service Commission for the latest.
Sources
• New York State Department of Public Service, "Con Edison Penalized $4.3 Million for Mistakes Regarding Renewable Energy Credits" (November 2025); PSC Case 25-E-0638• New York State Public Service Commission, Con Edison electric and gas rate proceeding, Cases 25-E-0072 and 25-G-0073 (order approved January 22, 2026)
• Office of the New York State Attorney General, "Attorney General James Secures Critical Reforms to Address Sexual Harassment and Discrimination at Con Ed" (March 25, 2025), and the Consolidated Edison Assurance of Discontinuance
• Burke v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02111 (S.D.N.Y.), Opinion and Order on summary judgment (Sept. 19, 2025), via Justia
• S.A.M. Management Co., Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-03494 (S.D.N.Y.), Opinion and Order granting dismissal (Sept. 11, 2023), via Justia; complaint via Milberg
About This Page
This article summarizes public regulatory filings, agency announcements, and court records concerning Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site and is not a law firm, a government agency, class counsel, or a party to any of the matters described. This page is general information, not legal advice. Allegations described in the lawsuits above are allegations only and, except where a court or agency has ruled, have not been proven; case and regulatory statuses may have changed after publication. For current details, consult the court dockets, the New York Public Service Commission, and the official sources listed above.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
