Senate passes bill to limit utility fees, terminations during formal investigations; 39-21

Albany, April 9, 2025 — The New York State Senate on Wednesday approved an amendment to the Public Service Law that prevents residential customers of gas, electric and steam utilities from being charged late fees, penalties, interest or losing service while a formal Public Service Commission (PSC) investigation is underway and for 120 days after the PSC issues its findings. The measure (Senate print 904A) passed 39–21.

Supporters said the bill fills a gap in consumer protections when utilities are under formal investigation. “When utility companies… billed incorrectly, those customers were impacted and not intervened by the PSC to protect them,” sponsor Senator Gonzalez said during debate, citing a 2021 Central Hudson billing episode as an example. Gonzalez said the bill provides consistent protections for customers while investigations proceed.

Backers argued the proposal is narrowly aimed at formal, credible investigations — not routine PSC proceedings such as ordinary rate-setting — and cited statutory authority for investigations under section 71 of the Public Service Law. “This bill is an important step towards doing that, and it’s certainly reasonable and common sense to say if a utility is under a formal and credible investigation that those consumers… should have some sort of protection as they struggle to keep up with their bills,” Gonzalez said as she urged colleagues to support the bill.

Opponents warned the measure could increase arrears and shift costs. “$1,300,000,000 is how much our utilities are in arrears right now,” Senator Walzick said on the floor, arguing the bill would lengthen the period customers could withhold payment — first while an investigation proceeds and then for an additional 120 days — and questioned who would ultimately pay utilities’ costs. Walzick voted no.

Senator Krueger, speaking for supporters, emphasized the bill targets cases of suspected overbilling and repeated that protections apply only when an investigation is found to be warranted after an informal review. “These are actual investigations into overcharges, not simply a blanket reprieve,” Krueger said, adding that the measure aims to protect consumers from being penalized while disputes are resolved.

Key provisions discussed on the floor and reflected in the text of the bill include: - Applicability to residential gas, electric and steam utility services when the PSC opens a formal investigation (the transcript and sponsors’ remarks refer to investigations that follow an informal review, often taking eight to nine months). - A prohibition on levying late fees, interest, penalties and on terminating service for customers affected by the specific matter under investigation while the formal investigation is pending. - An additional 120‑day protection window after the PSC issues its report determining whether any fees or arrears are owed. - A notice requirement that the utility notify customers promptly and post information online within the timelines specified in the bill once proceedings are initiated. - A preserved PSC authority to order customers to pay arrears if the final commission determination rules in the utility’s favor; sponsors stated that a favorable PSC ruling would allow the utility to be made whole.

Debate on the measure focused on definitions and scope: senators asked whether the bill would cover rate cases, investigations triggered by 25 or more written customer complaints under Public Service Law §71, and whether routine rate-setting processes were intended to be included. The sponsor repeatedly distinguished this bill as targeting major, system‑wide or clearly credible investigations rather than routine rate proceedings.

Vote and next steps The Senate roll call recorded 39 ayes and 21 nays on the measure. The bill will proceed to the next steps in the legislative process (transmittal to the Assembly or to the governor, depending on the chamber’s next action). The sponsor and several supporters urged a timely PSC review in order to limit the duration of disputed bills and the resulting financial strain on utilities and customers alike.

Context Supporters framed the bill as a consumer‑protection response to documented episodes in which large groups of customers received disputed bills; opponents warned the proposal could enlarge utilities’ arrears and ultimately pass costs to other ratepayers or require legislative fixes. The debate included references to the practical timeline for PSC proceedings and broader energy‑policy questions discussed separately in the chamber.