New York Assembly Bill A08025

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/22/25
• Refer: 4/22/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Authorizes the public service commission to consider non-economic loss suffered by consumers, including pain and suffering or mental anguish, when determining penalties against a public utility company, corporation or person or a combination gas and electric corporation.

Summary

A08025 would amend the New York Public Service Law to allow the Public Service Commission, when setting penalties under sections 25 and 25-a, to consider consumers’ non-economic losses. The bill specifically identifies pain and suffering and mental anguish as examples of harms that may be weighed in determining penalties, including in negotiated settlement agreements involving the Department, the Commission, and public utilities or combination gas and electric corporations. The measure does not create a new cause of action for consumers or directly change utility service standards; rather, it expands the factors the Commission may consider when imposing penalties on regulated utilities and related persons. By adding this authority to both general public utility enforcement and gas-and-electric enforcement provisions, the bill could influence how settlement amounts and penalty calculations are negotiated and assessed in utility enforcement matters.

Impact

The bill would amend Public Service Law sections 25 and 25-a by adding new subdivisions authorizing the Public Service Commission to consider non-economic consumer harm when determining penalties and settlement terms. This would broaden the Commission’s enforcement discretion in cases involving public utilities, corporations, persons, and combination gas and electric corporations, potentially increasing penalty exposure where service failures or misconduct cause emotional distress or other intangible harms. It would not itself mandate specific penalty amounts or create a private right of action, but it would change the statutory framework governing utility enforcement and settlements.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger consumer protection in utility enforcement. The bill’s framing suggests a consumer-centered approach that recognizes harms beyond direct financial loss, indicating an intent to give regulators more flexibility in responding to serious utility misconduct. Because no transcripts or vote history are available, there is no documented opposition or support from legislators in the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is whether regulators should be allowed to factor in non-economic harms such as pain and suffering or mental anguish when calculating penalties against utilities. Supporters would likely view this as a fairer way to account for the real impact of service failures on consumers, especially in severe outage or misconduct cases. Critics may argue that non-economic loss is difficult to measure, could make penalties less predictable, and may blur the line between regulatory enforcement and tort-like damages. The bill also raises questions about how such harms would be documented and how the Commission would apply the standard consistently in settlements and adjudications.