New York Senate Bill S09976

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

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

Caption

Allows settlement discussions before the public service commission to be determined publicly.

Summary

This bill amends the Public Service Law to change how certain issues are handled in New York Public Service Commission rate proceedings. It creates a process by which a party can ask the presiding administrative law judge to sever a “substantive issue” from settlement discussions and keep that issue for the litigation track instead of allowing it to be resolved privately in a settlement or joint proposal. The request must be made shortly after reply testimony is filed, other parties may respond, and the judge must issue a written ruling; the decision can also be reviewed by the commission. If the motion is granted, the identified issue may still be discussed in settlement negotiations for the first 60 days after settlement talks formally begin. After that period, the issue must proceed through litigation only unless the moving party later waives the severance right in writing. The bill defines key terms such as “joint proposal,” “settlement process,” “interlocutory review,” and “substantive issue,” with the definition of substantive issue designed to include factual or legal claims supported by testimony and to exclude only conclusory factual assertions without evidentiary support.

Impact

The bill would amend sections 66 and 89-c of the Public Service Law and apply to Public Service Commission proceedings initiated on or after its effective date. Its practical effect is to give parties in utility rate cases a formal mechanism to keep certain contested issues out of confidential settlement negotiations and preserve them for public adjudication, potentially increasing transparency and limiting the scope of private settlements. It would affect PSC rate proceedings, administrative law judges, the commission, utilities, and other parties to those proceedings, and would require any necessary implementing rules or regulations to be adopted before the effective date.

Sentiment

The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally pro-transparency sentiment, favoring public resolution of important rate-case issues rather than allowing them to be fully absorbed into closed-door settlement discussions. The available context does not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials beyond the bill’s caption and text. Based on the language alone, the measure appears intended to respond to concerns about secrecy in utility regulation and settlement practice.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between transparency and settlement efficiency. Supporters would likely argue that substantive issues in utility rate cases should be litigated publicly when they are important enough to affect final outcomes, while opponents may argue that the bill could make settlements harder to reach, slow proceedings, and reduce flexibility for parties to resolve disputes privately. Another possible area of dispute is the bill’s definition of “substantive issue,” which is broad and could lead to litigation over whether an issue qualifies for severance and public treatment.