New York Senate Bill S09966

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Requires both the department of public service staff and the utility to provide separate, substantive responses to discovery requests and cross-examination questions seeking evidence or explanations related to elements of the joint proposal and explain how any contested aspect of the joint proposal delivers outcomes for utility consumers that are in compliance with all applicable laws and are at least as favorable as would have resulted had its testimonial position been approved by the public service commission.

Summary

S09966 would amend the Public Service Law to change how the Public Service Commission reviews joint proposals in utility rate proceedings. The bill applies to proceedings involving the Department of Public Service staff and utilities, and it requires both sides to give separate, substantive answers to discovery requests and cross-examination questions about the terms of a joint proposal, even where settlement discussions are otherwise treated as confidential. It also requires each party to explain how contested parts of a joint proposal comply with applicable law and provide consumer outcomes at least as favorable as the party’s original testimonial position. The bill further directs the commission, when approving or modifying a joint proposal, to ensure that each individual element adopted in a rate plan order is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record and is the best outcome for utility consumers while remaining lawful. It defines “settlement discussions” and “joint proposal” for purposes of the new standards and applies the changes to Public Service Law sections 66, 80, and 89-c. The act would take effect 120 days after becoming law and would apply to PSC proceedings started on or after that date.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would impose a more demanding evidentiary and explanation standard on utility rate settlements before the Public Service Commission. It would narrow the practical effect of confidentiality rules for settlement discussions by requiring disclosure-oriented responses tied to joint proposals, and it would require the commission to make more explicit findings for each element of a settlement-based rate plan. The affected parties are the Department of Public Service staff, regulated utilities, intervenors in rate cases, and utility consumers, especially in proceedings under Public Service Law sections 66, 80, and 89-c.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears motivated by a consumer-protection and transparency rationale, aiming to ensure that settlement-based rate outcomes are fully justified and at least as favorable to consumers as litigated positions. The overall tone of the proposal is regulatory and oversight-focused rather than deregulatory.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s intrusion into settlement confidentiality and the higher burden it places on both utilities and department staff to justify joint proposals. Supporters would likely view the bill as improving transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in rate cases, while opponents may argue that it could discourage settlements, complicate negotiations, and make rate proceedings more adversarial. Another likely dispute is the requirement that each element of a joint proposal be supported by clear and convincing evidence and be shown to be the best outcome for consumers, which is a stricter standard than ordinary settlement approval practice.