New York Senate Bill S03876

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 1/30/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Engrossed: 4/30/25
• Enrolled: 12/8/25
• Chaptered: 12/19/25
• Passed: 12/19/25

Caption

Requires that a billing statement delivered to the customer by an energy services company include a side-by-side comparison showing both the price charged by the energy service company for commodity and delivery service during the prior billing period, and the price the customer would have paid had they taken commodity and delivery service from their local utility corporation or municipality; requires an energy service company to provide each of its customers with an annual statement comparing the price charged by the energy service company for commodity and delivery services and other energy-related value-added products over the prior twelve-month period with the price such customer would have paid had they taken commodity and delivery service from their local utility corporation or municipality.

Summary

S03876 would amend New York’s General Business Law to require energy services companies (ESCOs) to give customers clearer, more direct price comparisons. On each billing statement, the first page would have to show a side-by-side comparison of what the customer paid ESCOs for commodity and delivery service during the prior billing period versus what the customer would have paid through the local utility corporation or municipality. The bill also requires the statement to separately itemize any energy-related value-added products charged by the ESCO. The bill further requires ESCOs to provide an annual comparison statement covering the prior 12 months. That statement must compare the total ESCO charges for commodity, delivery, and value-added products with the amount the customer would have paid through the local utility or municipality, and it must clearly indicate whether the customer saved money or paid a premium by using the ESCO. The bill takes effect 180 days after becoming law and authorizes any necessary implementing regulations to be adopted immediately.

Impact

The bill would expand disclosure obligations for ESCOs under section 349-d of the General Business Law and strengthen consumer transparency in the retail energy market. It would also preserve and reaffirm the enforcement authority of the Attorney General, the Public Service Commission, the Long Island Power Authority, and the Department of State, including civil penalties, restitution, private rights of action, and existing authority to regulate or restrict ESCO marketing practices.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support for the measure. It passed the Senate Consumer Protection Committee unanimously and then cleared both chambers by wide margins, indicating that lawmakers generally viewed the bill as a consumer-protection and price-transparency measure rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main policy issue is whether ESCO customers are receiving enough information to understand if they are actually saving money compared with their local utility or municipality. Supporters appear to favor stronger disclosure and clearer comparisons to curb misleading billing or marketing practices, while any opposition would likely come from ESCOs concerned about added compliance burdens, the framing of comparisons, or the potential effect on their business model. The bill’s retention of broad enforcement and regulatory authority also suggests an intent to address concerns about deceptive energy marketing.