New York Senate Bill S09933

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/16/26
• Refer: 4/16/26

Caption

Requires the department of public service to assign an administrative law judge to preside over all rate case settlement negotiations.

Summary

This bill amends the Public Service Law to require the Department of Public Service to assign an administrative law judge, or judges, trained in mediation and facilitation to oversee settlement negotiations in major utility rate proceedings. The requirement applies when a utility files a notice of impending negotiations in proceedings involving electric, natural gas, water, and steam rates. The assigned judge would manage the settlement process, coordinate scheduling, facilitate meetings, encourage open communication, and help ensure negotiations are orderly, fair, efficient, and consistent across cases. The bill also directs the department to publish public standards describing how the settlement process will be organized and administered. In addition, the judge may act as a mediator on a particular topic if requested by a party, unless another party with an interest in that topic objects. The bill defines key terms such as “settlement administrative law judge,” “settlement process,” and “joint proposal,” and it applies to Public Service Commission proceedings initiated on or after the effective date, which is 120 days after enactment.

Impact

The bill would change the procedures governing utility rate cases under the Public Service Law by formalizing judicial oversight of settlement negotiations in PSC proceedings. It would affect the Department of Public Service, administrative law judges, utilities seeking rate increases, consumer advocates, and other parties participating in rate cases. By requiring trained settlement judges and public process standards, the bill is intended to make settlement negotiations more structured and predictable and to reduce variation from one case to another.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed positively as a process-improvement bill rather than a controversial policy change. Its stated goals are fairness, consistency, efficiency, and broader participation in utility rate settlements, suggesting support for transparency and better case management. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or recorded sentiment beyond the bill’s own emphasis on improving the settlement process.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the degree of control the Department of Public Service and its administrative law judges would have over settlement negotiations. Parties in rate cases may differ on whether mandatory judicial oversight improves fairness and efficiency or adds another layer of procedure that could affect bargaining dynamics. The bill also allows mediation by the judge only if no other interested party objects, which suggests sensitivity to concerns about neutrality and party autonomy in negotiations.