At Tuesday's New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) public hearing regarding Central Hudson's latest proposed rate increase request, state regulators listened to the public vent their frustrations with their power provider. Forty or so attended; 20 or so spoke; no one supported the increase.

Central Hudson has been pushing the envelope with rate increases since 2021, when they paid $88 million to switch to a new billing system that turned into a disaster. There were months of turmoil as thousands of accounts were overcharged, some by thousands of dollars. The state and the board of directors cracked down, firing the CEO the next year, but the company never righted the ship, and has steadily stacked rate increases nearly every year since then – many believe in an attempt to defray the cost of the billing fiasco.

In the meantime, Central Hudson has brought in about $850 million in revenue each year, while its parent Company, Canadian energy giant Fortis, Inc., reported over a billion and a half dollars of net earnings last year.

Under the company's latest request, electrical delivery rates would go up by 5.3 percent and gas by 5.9 percent. According to the utility, the average customer bill would increase by $9.10 a month for electricity and $8.74 for gas. Those figures were met with extreme skepticism by the public in attendance.

Ulster County Executive Jen Metzger addressed the meeting in person; state Sen. Michelle Hinchey and Assemblymember Sarahana Shrestha delivered statements by proxy. Representatives of several energy policy activist groups like Communities for Local Power were on hand.

Their statements recounted Central Hudson's troubled service history, parent company Fortis' financial health (51 consecutive years of increased dividends), and the financial difficulties of so many of the company's customers. Hinchey and Shrestha’s reps touted their proposal to replace the utility with a publicly-owned entity to be known as the Hudson Valley Power Company. The matter of long-term strategy in the face of climate change was set aside for another day.

Central Hudson's customers brought a horror show feel to the matter, simply by recounting sky-high bills and runarounds in the subterranean landscape of CH customer relations. One resident said he made a point of stress-testing the system.

“I deliberately stopped paying my bill,” Charles Sanchis of Kingston explained. “I allowed the termination notices to be triggered on February 14 and April 16. I called Central Hudson approximately 12 different times. Each time I would get a different employee; each time I would get a different response from the employee. It became apparent that there was no consistency or uniformity on their delegated authority or their decisions on customers’ bills.”

Sanchis made a March payment to stave off service termination, he said, but what followed was further confusion. “The employee told me that I would be getting an email from Central Hudson, basically saying your deferred payment agreement is approved. But I got seven different emails basically saying it's going to be reviewed.”

With assistance from Shrestha's office, Sanchis managed to speak directly to Central Hudson management. “That individual employee who I spoke with told me that, yes, Central Hudson's call center lacks uniform training, and therefore any employee at Central Hudson who speaks on a customer's account, including the amount they owe, including the amount that's listed on the notice as to what has to be their upfront payment, is inconsistent across all of them, that individual employee has somehow unilateral authority to make that decision.”

As of press time, Sanchis was still wrangling with Central Hudson over how much he owes them. He is facing what appears to be service termination on May 6.

In another instance of beleaguered consumer resilience, Joseph M. of Wappingers Falls (he preferred not to be further identified) played the role of energy accountant, leading the room through a reading of the complexities of the utility's bill structure. His findings, he claimed, show that extra increases are hidden in overage charges.

“Last year in August we had a rate increase, right? Central Hudson asked for 16 percent for electric, 19 for natural gas, not even close to inflation, just off the charts. The PSC approved 8 percent electric, 9 percent for natural gas. I went back and I looked at my delivery charges. I compared them prior to that August rate increase to what they are. Now they're not even close to those percentages for electric. The base rate increase was $19.50, now it's $21.50. That's a 10 percent increase, small potatoes. That's not the bulk of it, the bulk runs at per additional kilowatt hour, 21 percent increase... Now, that's where the bulk of your money's at. Twenty-one percent increase.”

Regarding natural gas, Joseph M. said the situation was the same: charges for “additional cubic feet” saw price increases over and above the PSC approved rate.

“If these approved rates were actually true and hit our bills, we all wouldn't be here today,” he said. “The increases would be so small and so minimal, you would hardly even know this stuff we're talking about... So, PSC, you really need to look at this, at these proposed rate increases, because these assumptions that you're getting from Central Hudson are disingenuous at best. I have the numbers right here. You can make a forecast, but when the actual system hits your bill, you can't fudge these. I've got them right here. I've got the percentages.”

Tuesday's meeting was for informational purposes only. PSC reps gathered the testimonies to pass on to the board which will decide the rate case at some unknown future date. No decision resulted from the day's event. Still, attendees pushed for more.

You need to do your job as a PSC to press on this,” Joseph M. said. “That's your job.”

Central Hudson media relations office has this to say about the hearing: “Central Hudson values the input from all stakeholders in our proposed rate filing, and that includes the customer’s ability to voice their questions and concerns through Public Statement hearings. We will take the information provided from these hearings and apply it to our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement that balances affordability with meeting the evolving needs of customers and New York State.”

On the matter of customer service competence and training the company stated: “Central Hudson is committed to improving every facet of the customer experience and that includes interactions with members of our contact center. Our contact center employees undergo a comprehensive 12-week onboarding process as an initial training before they are authorized to interact with our customers. In addition, we have recently hired a new Chief Customer Services Officer with extensive experience in overseeing customer services within the utility industry. She will be instrumental in continuing our efforts to provide best-in-class service to residents of the Mid-Hudson Valley.”

However the state finally rules on the utility's rate increase request, state law dictates that “After a hearing and after such an investigation as shall have been made by the commission or its officers, agents, examiners or inspectors, the commission may, by order, fix just and reasonable [our italics] prices, rates and charges for gas or electricity.”

“Just and reasonable,” is as unclear as other crucial legal terms like beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s highly fact-dependent, such as the fact the CH is one arm of a highly profitable enterprise and individual customers are all too often living paycheck to paycheck.

In the opinion of one of the meeting's attendees, energy activist Troy Ellen Dixon, “A rate hike may be ‘fair and reasonable’ for Central Hudson. But it's unfair and unreasonable for the public.”