CONSOLIDATED EDISON INCED
CONSOLIDATED EDISON INC Commitments Disclosure
Material Contingencies
Manhattan Explosion and Fire
On March 12, 2014, two multi-use five-story tall buildings located on Park Avenue between 116th and 117th Streets in Manhattan were destroyed by an explosion and fire. CECONY had delivered gas to the buildings through service lines from a distribution main located below ground on Park Avenue. Eight people died and more than 50 people were injured. Additional buildings were also damaged. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated. The parties to the investigation included CECONY, the City of New York, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the NYSPSC. In June 2015, the NTSB issued a final report concerning the incident, its probable cause and safety recommendations. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the incident was (1) the failure of a defective fusion joint at a service tee (which joined a plastic service line to a plastic distribution main) installed by CECONY that allowed gas to leak from the distribution main and migrate into a building where it ignited and (2) a breach in a city sewer line that allowed groundwater and soil to flow into the sewer, resulting in a loss of support for the distribution main, that caused it to sag and overstressed the defective fusion joint. The NTSB also made safety recommendations, including recommendations to CECONY that addressed its procedures for the preparation and examination of plastic fusions, training of its staff on conditions for notifications to the city’s Fire Department and extension of its gas main isolation valve installation program. In February 2017, the NYSPSC approved a settlement agreement with CECONY related to the NYSPSC's investigations of the incident and the practices of qualifying persons to perform plastic fusions. Pursuant to the agreement, CECONY provided $27 million of future benefits to customers (for which it accrued a regulatory liability) and did not recover from customers $126 million of costs for gas emergency response activities that it had previously incurred and expensed. Lawsuits are pending against CECONY seeking generally unspecified damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption. CECONY notified its insurers of the incident and believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover CECONY's costs, in excess of a required retention (the amount of which is not material), to satisfy any liability it may have for damages in connection with the incident. During 2020, CECONY accrued its estimated liability for the suits of $40 million and an insurance receivable in the same amount, and such estimated liability and receivable did not change as of December 31, 2025.
Other Contingencies
For additional contingencies, see “Other Regulatory Matters” in Note B, Note G and "Uncertain Tax Positions" in Note L.
Guarantees
Con Edison has entered into various agreements providing financial or performance assurance primarily to third parties on behalf of their subsidiaries. Maximum amounts guaranteed by Con Edison under these agreements totaled $60 million and $58 million at December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.
A summary, by type and term, of Con Edison’s total guarantees under these other agreements at December 31, 2025 is as follows:
| Guarantee Type | 0 – 3 years | > 10 years | Total | ||||||||||||||
| (Millions of Dollars) | |||||||||||||||||
| Con Edison Transmission | $60 | $— | $60 | ||||||||||||||
| Total | $60 | $— | $60 | ||||||||||||||
Con Edison Transmission – Con Edison has guaranteed payment by Con Edison Transmission of the contributions Con Edison Transmission agreed to make to New York Transco LLC (New York Transco). Con Edison Transmission owns a 45.7 percent interest in New York Transco's New York Energy Solution project, the majority of which has been completed. The guarantee amount shown in the table above includes the maximum possible required amount of Con Edison Transmission's contributions for the remainder of this project as calculated based on the assumptions that the project is completed at 175 percent of its estimated remaining costs and New York Transco does not use any debt financing for the project.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 19, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 20, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 15, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 16, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 17, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 18, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 20, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 21, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 15, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Feb 16, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Feb 18, 2016 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.