Senate approves ESCO billing transparency measure after floor debate over CLCPA costs

The New York State Senate on Feb. 25, 2025, approved legislation requiring energy service companies (ESCOs) to include on monthly statements a side‑by‑side comparison showing the price the ESCO charged for commodity and delivery and what the customer would have paid the local utility.

The measure’s sponsor said the change is intended to give consumers an easily readable comparison on their monthly bill rather than requiring them to consult separate PSC documents or online tools. Opponents sought to add language that would require bills to itemize costs attributed to the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA); that amendment was ruled non‑germane and the ruling was appealed and sustained. The bill passed on the floor after debate.

Senator Hoylman, the bill sponsor, outlined the primary requirement: “What our bill would do…would require that the billing statements delivered to customers by ESCOs…include a side by side comparison showing both the price charged by the ESCO for the commodity and delivery service during the prior bill period, and the price the customer would have paid with their local utility.”

Senator Fitzpatrick, who appealed the chair’s ruling on a proposed amendment, urged the chamber to require broader transparency. “The Climate Action Council’s own estimates for the cost of the CLCPA are up to $340,000,000,000,” Fitzpatrick said, arguing that New Yorkers have “the right to know the impact the policies out of Albany will have on their bills and on their wallets.” The appeal failed; the chair’s ruling was sustained and the bill proceeded without the CLCPA line‑item language.

Other senators debated the scope of disclosure and the source of current price information. The sponsor indicated that data the bill would place on monthly statements already exist under prior law and PSC reporting requirements, but that the bill would move those comparisons to the customer’s regular statement to make them more accessible. “We shouldn’t have to direct a consumer to a website to understand if they’re getting their money’s worth,” the sponsor said on the floor.

Supporters said the bill advances consumer understanding and helps households compare offers when ESCO sales teams solicit customers. Senator Mayer, speaking in favor, said constituents often “don’t understand their bill” and that clearer monthly comparisons will reduce confusion and frustration. Opponents said the proposal does not hold government programs to the same standard of monthly disclosure and pressed for broader transparency about CLCPA implementation costs. Senator Borrello said he objected to what he described as a double standard for government and private entities and voiced concern about statewide climate plan cost estimates.

The Senate sustained the chair’s ruling on the attempted CLCPA amendment and adopted the ESCO billing comparison measure. The bill was restored to the non‑controversial calendar before final passage; the official reading and the roll call were completed on Feb. 25 and the measure was passed.

What changed: Under the new requirement, customers receiving bills from ESCOs will see, on their regular monthly statement, a line‑by‑line comparison showing the ESCO’s billed commodity/delivery price for the prior billing period and the comparable charge from the customer’s local utility, enabling a direct monthly comparison without visiting PSC web pages or other reports.

What was not adopted: An amendment that would have required utility bills to include a discrete line item showing costs attributable to the CLCPA was ruled non‑germane and was not added to the bill. The Senate sustained the chair’s ruling on that point.

Next steps: The bill passed the Senate on Feb. 25 and will follow the normal enactment path (enrollment and transmission to the governor). The transcript did not include enrollment numbers, the bill number used for final chaptering, or the exact roll‑call tally beyond the named dissenting senators; those details were not specified in the floor record provided.