Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Public Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate adds mental‑anguish standard to PSC penalty considerations in utility package; measure passes
Summary
The State Senate voted to allow the Public Service Commission to consider "pain and suffering" and "mental anguish" when setting penalties in utility investigations, part of a broader utility package. Sponsors said the change responds to egregious utility misconduct; opponents warned of hidden costs to ratepayers. The measure passed 40–20.
The New York State Senate voted on Wednesday to amend the Public Service Law to permit the Public Service Commission (PSC) to consider non‑economic harms — including “pain and suffering” and “mental anguish” — when imposing penalties on utilities found to have engaged in egregious conduct.
Sponsor Senator Hinchey said the change would give the PSC an extra tool in investigations, citing billing failures in the Hudson Valley that caused severe hardship for customers. “We had constituents… contemplating things like suicide,” Hinchey said during floor questions, and added that the amendment is intended as a discretionary remedy the PSC may use in cases of acute harm.
The measure was debated alongside a broader set of bills described by supporters as an “affordability” and utility‑reform package. Supporters argued the change addresses harms that go beyond dollars and cents when utilities act improperly; they pointed to existing legal uses of similar language in civil practice and insurance statutes.
Opponents questioned both the legal clarity of terms such as “mental anguish” and whether penalties paid by utilities ultimately would be borne by ratepayers. Sponsor’s office and floor supporters pointed to Public Service Law provisions that limit utilities’ ability to recover certain penalty payments in later rate cases, saying payments ordered by the PSC under enforcement actions are not recoverable from ratepayers.
Senator Walzick and others argued the legislative agenda and separate climate policies (including the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA) are driving up energy costs, and they opposed additional regulatory burdens on utilities. Supporters, including Senator Mayer and Senator Krueger, said the bill is targeted: it would apply only in enforcement matters where the PSC determines a utility’s conduct was particularly harmful, and it would not require the PSC to award such damages in every case.
The Senate recorded 40 Ayes and 20 Nays on the measure; the bill passed. Floor remarks and question‑and‑answer exchanges referenced the PSC’s investigative process, administrative law judges, and analogies to civil practice law and insurance law definitions.
The bill’s sponsor and supporters said the provision is intended to be used sparingly and only in the context of formal PSC investigations where utilities have been found to have engaged in egregious behavior. Opponents urged caution, arguing the statutory language is not sufficiently defined and could produce unintended costs. The Senate moved the bill forward as part of the supplemental and controversial calendars.
Ending: The amendment now proceeds through the remaining steps required for enactment. If implemented by the PSC in an enforcement action, its application and any awards will be subject to administrative process and, potentially, judicial review.
