Requires electric corporations build make-ready infrastructure to facilitate the charging of electric public serving fleet vehicles.
Summary
This bill adds a new section to the Public Service Law to create a framework for “make-ready” electrical infrastructure needed to support charging for electric public serving fleet vehicles. It defines key terms such as utility-owned make-ready costs, customer-owned make-ready costs, disadvantaged community, and public serving fleet, and directs electric corporations to make reasonable efforts to size and operate infrastructure efficiently, including consideration of load management and distributed energy resources.
The bill requires electric corporations, within 60 days of the law’s effective date, to file tariff applications with the Public Service Commission to replace existing line extension rules for this type of infrastructure. Those tariffs must allow utilities to deploy or reimburse reasonable customer-side make-ready costs, include utility-owned make-ready costs in rate base, and recover certain costs through rates or surcharges. The bill also sets higher cost-sharing support for projects in disadvantaged communities and limits direct cost recovery from the served customer in most cases, with a clawback mechanism if a non-public customer reduces fleet vehicles at the site within 10 years.
Impact
The bill would amend the Public Service Law by adding section 66-x, creating a specific regulatory and ratemaking structure for electric vehicle charging infrastructure serving public fleets. It would shift a substantial portion of utility-owned and customer-side make-ready costs into utility rate base or surcharge recovery, rather than requiring full upfront payment by the fleet customer, and would require the Public Service Commission to define “disadvantaged community zone” and approve or modify tariffs within 90 days of filing. The affected parties are electric corporations, the Public Service Commission, and public serving fleets owned, leased, or contracted by the state, municipalities, public authorities, and school districts, with additional benefits for projects located in disadvantaged communities.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a pro-electrification, infrastructure-support measure aimed at reducing barriers for public fleet electrification. Its structure suggests support for utility participation and cost recovery while also emphasizing equity for disadvantaged communities. No contrary sentiment is documented in the supplied record, but the bill’s cost-recovery provisions indicate an underlying policy balance between encouraging deployment and protecting ratepayer and customer interests.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is how much of the infrastructure cost should be borne by utility ratepayers versus the individual fleet customer. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s use of rate base and surcharge recovery to lower upfront costs and accelerate fleet electrification, especially in disadvantaged communities, while critics may question whether shifting utility and customer-side make-ready costs into rates unfairly socializes project expenses. Another possible point of contention is the 10-year clawback for non-public customers that reduce fleet vehicles at a site after receiving incentives, which may be seen as necessary to prevent abuse but also as a constraint on customer flexibility.