New York Senate Bill S09964

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/20/26
• Refer: 4/20/26

Caption

Prohibits public utilities from passing along the cost of site investigation and remediation efforts on to rate payers; requires each public utility with more than seventy-five thousand customers to submit to the public service commission an annual report containing a description of any expenses that may not be included or incorporated in the public utility's operating expenses.

Summary

S09964 would amend the Public Service Law to bar public utilities from recovering certain environmental cleanup-related costs from customers through rates, tariffs, or other charges. The bill defines “site investigation and remediation expenses” broadly to include costs tied to investigating and cleaning up contaminated sites, including petroleum or chemical spills, PFAS contamination, former gas manufacturing and factory sites, brownfields, and state or federal superfund sites. The bill also prohibits utilities from passing through related fines, penalties, and legal, advisory, or consulting fees connected to those remediation obligations. In addition, utilities with more than 75,000 customers would have to file annual itemized reports with the Public Service Commission describing these non-recoverable expenses, and those reports would be made publicly available online. The Public Service Commission would be required to adopt rules to implement the new requirements.

Impact

The bill would create a new article in the Public Service Law limiting what public utilities may include in operating expenses for rate recovery. In practical terms, it shifts the financial burden of environmental investigation and remediation costs away from ratepayers and onto utilities and their shareholders, while also increasing reporting and transparency obligations for larger utilities. It would apply to utilities regulated under the Public Service Law and would require PSC rulemaking to carry out the new restrictions.

Sentiment

The available record shows the bill as newly introduced with no committee transcript or vote history provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears framed as a consumer-protection and accountability measure aimed at preventing utility customers from subsidizing environmental cleanup liabilities. The absence of recorded debate or votes means support and opposition cannot be directly measured from the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether utilities should be allowed to recover remediation-related costs from ratepayers or whether those costs should be borne by the utility as part of its business and environmental responsibility. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness to consumers, especially where contamination involves legacy industrial sites, PFAS, or utility-related pollution. Opponents may argue that prohibiting cost recovery could increase utility financial risk, affect rates in other ways, or discourage utilities from undertaking remediation quickly if they cannot recoup expenses.