By: Tzirel Rosenblatt

New Yorkers are being jolted yet again by a financial shock that will reverberate through households, small businesses, and entire neighborhoods for years to come. As reported by The New York Post on Thursday, Con Edison has received approval to impose sweeping increases on both electricity and gas rates, a move that will drive the average household’s annual energy costs up by more than $600 by 2028 — a staggering burden in a city already suffocating under the weight of inflation, housing costs, and a rising cost of living.

The decision, greenlit Thursday by New York State’s Public Service Commission, immediately sets in motion a multi-year escalation in utility prices that will affect millions of residents across New York City and Westchester County. As The New York Post report detailed, the increases are backdated to January 1, meaning the financial squeeze begins not in the future, but retroactively — a bureaucratic technicality that translates into immediate pain for consumers already struggling to keep pace with soaring expenses.

Under the approved plan, electric bills will climb by a cumulative 10.4% through 2028, while gas bills will balloon by an even steeper 15.8%. For the average New Yorker, that translates into roughly $482 more per year for gas and another $134 annually for electricity, for a combined hit of approximately $615 per household every year by the end of the decade. For families living paycheck to paycheck, seniors on fixed incomes, and working-class residents already juggling impossible tradeoffs between rent, food, healthcare, and transportation, the numbers are not just statistics — they are existential.

Speaking to The New York Post, 65-year-old Inwood resident Cate Wiley captured the emotional reality behind the figures. “So, I’m already paying double what I was paying about four years ago,” she said, struggling to understand how the state continues to justify the compounding costs. “I get my bill, and I’m just, like, how do they, how does that figure?” Her frustration reflects a broader sentiment rippling through the city — a feeling that utility pricing has become detached from lived economic reality.

Wiley acknowledged that she herself can still manage the rising costs, but her concern extended beyond her own circumstances. “There are so many New Yorkers who won’t be able to pay. Like, literally, they can’t pay or keep the lights on. It’s so sad, and doesn’t make any sense at all,” she told The New York Post. Her words echo a growing fear among advocates that energy poverty — the condition in which households must choose between utilities and other basic necessities — is quietly expanding across the city.

This latest increase does not exist in isolation. As The New York Post has repeatedly documented, New York’s electricity costs have already risen nearly 40% since 2019, with year-over-year increases compounding relentlessly. By 2028, the cumulative growth will approach 51% — an extraordinary escalation in less than a decade. For many residents, this is not merely inflationary pressure but a structural shift in the affordability of urban life itself.

In Westchester County, the numbers are even more sobering. Homes that consume roughly 600 kilowatt-hours per month could see annual electricity bills climb to approximately $2,620 by 2028, up from about $2,380 today. As The New York Post reported, that alone represents an additional $240 annually, on top of gas increases and other household costs.

The Public Service Commission justified the hikes by citing infrastructure needs, maintenance costs, and system reliability. PSC Chair Rory Christian framed the decision as a matter of legal obligation rather than political choice, stating that “law, not politics” governs how rates are determined. The commission argued that Con Edison requires increased revenue to maintain safe and reliable service amid aging infrastructure, rising operational costs, and expanding demand driven by electrification policies.

Commissioner Denise Sheehan emphasized that the final approved increases were lower than Con Edison’s initial proposal, which sought an 11.4% electricity hike and even steeper adjustments elsewhere. “It’s a considerable reduction,” she said, characterizing the increases as “in line with inflation.” But for many New Yorkers, the phrase rings hollow. Inflation may explain incremental increases; it does not explain a decade-long upward trajectory that is fundamentally reshaping household budgets.

As The New York Post report noted, New York’s energy costs already stand roughly 44% higher than the national average, according to a Progressive Policy Institute study published in November. That disparity underscores a broader structural problem: residents of one of America’s most expensive cities are paying far more for basic utilities than their counterparts elsewhere, with little visible relief in sight.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose political rise was built on promises of affordability and economic justice for working-class New Yorkers, did not formally object to the rate hikes. City officials issued a statement acknowledging the increases as roughly aligned with inflation, arguing that systemwide electrification, rising demand, and infrastructure needs made a rate freeze “not possible.” While the administration emphasized preparedness measures and infrastructure investment, the lack of direct opposition drew quiet criticism from affordability advocates.

For many residents, the issue transcends technical explanations. It is about a lived experience of being financially compressed from every direction — rent, groceries, transportation, healthcare, taxes, and now utilities — with no meaningful structural relief. As The New York Post has chronicled over the years, utility costs in the city have become one of the most consistent drivers of household financial stress, particularly in working-class and immigrant communities.

Daniel B., a 58-year-old Upper West Side resident, told The New York Post that he has watched prices climb “incrementally” for years, with no sense that policymakers are pursuing real alternatives. “There’s got to be alternatives, and there’s not much creativity toward investing in those alternatives,” he said. His comment reflects a growing belief that the city and state remain trapped in reactive policymaking rather than long-term structural reform.

The political symbolism of utility hikes in New York carries historical weight. Past mayors have been politically scarred by perceived failures in crisis management, whether in storms, blackouts, or infrastructure breakdowns. Energy policy is not merely technical — it is deeply political, shaping public trust in governance and the social contract between the state and its citizens.

What makes the current moment particularly volatile is the convergence of multiple pressures: climate policy mandates, electrification targets, aging grid infrastructure, geopolitical energy instability, and inflationary aftershocks from the post-pandemic economy. These forces are reshaping energy systems nationwide, but nowhere are the consequences felt more acutely than in dense, high-cost urban centers like New York.

As The New York Post reported, the city’s infrastructure is aging faster than it is being modernized, while demand continues to rise through electric vehicles, building electrification mandates, and population density. The result is a system under strain — and consumers are being asked to finance that strain directly.

For lower-income households, the implications are profound. Utility bills are not discretionary expenses. They are non-negotiable costs of survival. When they rise faster than wages, they erode financial stability, increase housing insecurity, and push vulnerable residents toward debt and crisis. Energy insecurity becomes a silent driver of inequality.

Advocates warn that without targeted relief programs, subsidies, and long-term cost-containment strategies, the city risks deepening socioeconomic divides. Middle-class households may absorb the increases through reduced savings and lifestyle adjustments. Low-income households may face shutoffs, arrears, and displacement.