Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly approves ESCO billing‑comparison requirement after floor debate on consumer safeguards and implementation
Summary
The Assembly passed legislation requiring energy service companies (ESCOs) to include a side‑by‑side comparison on customer bills showing ESCO prices versus local utility prices and an annual comparison of total charges. Sponsors said the change protects consumers; opponents warned of implementation costs and potential consumer confusion.
The Assembly on the floor debated and passed a measure requiring energy service companies (ESCOs) to include a comparison on billing statements showing the price customers pay to an ESCO compared with what the customer would pay as a utility customer, and an annual summary comparing total charges. Assemblymember Dinowitz, explaining the bill, said the measure is intended to address "fraud, abuse, and other issues" that have arisen in the retail ESCO market and to help consumers determine whether they are saving money.
Debate focused on operational questions and potential consumer impacts. Members asked whether the comparison should be mandatory for utilities as well as ESCOs, who would bear the cost of reformatting bills, and whether existing Public Service Commission (PSC) tools (a PSC website comparison tool) are sufficient. Dinowitz said ESCOs already work with utilities and that the information is "readily accessible" to ESCOs; he argued the comparison is a simple transparency measure that could benefit consumers.
Opponents said the bill could create confusion, impose costs that would be passed to ratepayers, risk unintended consequences for customers on fixed‑rate or annual contracts (including early termination fees), and could discourage competition. Assemblymember Bologna and others explained their negative votes as concerns about execution and whether the PSC should complete its internal review before the Legislature enacts further mandates.
Floor clerks read the final section stating the act "shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day." The roll‑call on final passage recorded: "Ayes 134, Noes 10." Sponsor Dinowitz and several questioners exchanged detailed procedural points on supply vs. delivery charges, bill formatting, and existing regulatory tools. The bill text requires monthly side‑by‑side comparisons on the first page of ESCO customer statements and an annual total‑price comparison; exact formatting and data‑exchange mechanisms between ESCOs and utilities were not resolved on the floor.
Members flagged enforcement mechanisms already available — including a consumer bill of rights and civil penalties enforced by the attorney general — and PSC orders from 2016 requiring guaranteed savings for new and renewal contracts and a ban on ESCO sales to low‑income customers. Supporters said added transparency on billing would show consumers when ESCO offers do or do not save money.
