New York energy storage and solar trade groups are seeking an immediate end to what they say is an effective freeze on interconnection of distributed storage facilities by the state’s largest investor-owned utility.
The New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium (NY-BEST) and New York Solar Energy Industries Association (NYSEIA) filed a petition for emergency rulemaking March 11 asking the Public Service Commission to restrict Consolidated Edison from applying an “unlawful and arbitrary” review standard for New York City storage projects.
They charge that Con Edison’s review process was implemented without legal justification, is causing irreparable harm to the storage industry and is exacerbating grid reliability concerns in the region. There was no need to change the way storage is studied under the state’s Standardized Interconnection Requirements, they argue, but if such a need did exist, there are much better ways to address it.
The utility stood by its actions.
“Con Edison supports battery storage as a critical part of New York’s clean energy transition, and the rapid growth in applications reflects strong market momentum,” Vice President for Distributed Resource Integration Raghu Sudhakara told RTO Insider via email March 11. He added, however, that the sector’s expansion must be carried out in a way that does not shift new infrastructure costs onto the utility’s ratepayers.
The disagreement has been fermenting for months, and it spans PSC cases on energy storage (18-E-0130), distributed generation and storage (24-E-0621) and New York City reliability needs (25-E-0764).
NYISO and the PSC both have identified grid reliability risks looming in and near New York City, and both have taken steps to address it. (See N.Y. PSC Directs Con Edison to Create Plan to Avert Energy Shortfall.)
Battery energy storage systems (BESS), with their dispatchable output and lack of on-site emissions, are one of the potential solutions in the densely populated region; over 2,000 MW of capacity have been proposed.
On Aug. 15, 2025, Con Edison notified developers that it had placed on hold all BESS proposals seeking interconnection at seven constrained substations. It added 21 more substations to the list Sept. 16.
NY-BEST on Jan. 13 petitioned the PSC for “urgent action” on the utility’s move. It supported its call for immediate relief from Con Edison’s new restrictions on BESS interconnection with a white paper outlining suggested changes in interconnection and market rules to better enable storage to provide maximum value to the grid.
The infrastructure upgrade requirements resulting from Con Edison’s changes to the Coordinated Electric System Interconnection Review rendered most of the energy storage projects proposed in New York City economically unviable, NY-BEST said.
The organization also flagged the “fundamental misalignment between utility financial incentives and New York’s energy affordability goals”: A utility earns a regulated rate of return on capital expenses such as infrastructure upgrades, but not for facilitating third-party BESS interconnections.
The PSC on Feb. 20 solicited public comment on the petition but took no action to change or limit Con Edison’s practice.
On Jan. 14, Con Edison told the PSC there were 115 MW of operational BESS and 865 MW with executed interconnection agreements in the utility’s service area as of Dec. 31. But the interconnection queue for BESS proposals with 5 MW or less capacity had reached 2,500 MW, up 300% in two years.
That is a quarter of its 10-GW peak load in 2024, Con Edison wrote.
A problem, it said, was that the BESS proposals were being concentrated in areas with less expensive land and more favorable zoning — 65% of the storage megawatts in the queue would be supplied by just 10 of the company’s 63 substations. More than 20 substations were at or near hosting limits.
Because BESS typically would seek to recharge overnight, full buildout would make night peaks exceed daytime peaks and require new infrastructure that otherwise would not have to be built. Con Edison sought to put the developers on the hook for the resulting costs, which it said could run in the $100 million to $1 billion-plus range.
“As the market scales, storage must deliver real benefits to customers — not drive new infrastructure costs that show up on bills — which is why we are working with regulators and stakeholders to align growth with real-world grid conditions preserving grid reliability while also protecting affordability,” Sudhakara explained. “Without reforms, current policies risk shifting significant new costs to customers, undermining both affordability and the long-term success of storage.”
NY-BEST and NYSEIA in their petition attempt over the course of 26 pages to punch holes in the legality, accuracy and necessity of Con Edison’s steps to carry out the priorities Sudhakara cited.
They ask the PSC for an emergency rule to immediately block Con Edison from using the restrictive requirements for distributed storage applications and keep the ruling in place while it considers NY-BEST’s Jan. 13 petition.
