Search

Search bills, members, committees and pages...

Sign In

A 11468

New York Assembly•In Assembly Committee

Summary

A 11468, which requires both the department of public service staff and the utility to provide separate, substantive responses to discovery requests and cross-examination questions seeking evidence or explanations related to elements of the joint proposal and explain how any contested aspect of the joint proposal delivers outcomes for utility consumers that are in compliance with all applicable laws and are at least as favorable as would have resulted had its testimonial position been approved by the public service commission, was introduced in the Assembly on May 20, 2026 by Asm. Edward Braunstein (D). It was referred to Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, and last saw action on May 20, 2026: referred to corporations, authorities and commissions.

Record

Text

A 11468 has no co-sponsors and has not gone to a roll call.

a11468/original.txt
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
                                   11468
                           I N  A S S E M B L Y
                               May 20, 2026
                                ___________
 Introduced  by COMMITTEE ON RULES -- (at request of M. of A. Braunstein)
   -- read once and referred to the Committee on  Corporations,  Authori-
   ties and Commissions
 AN  ACT  to  amend  the  public service law, in relation to the standard
   applicable to review of joint proposals in rate proceedings  submitted
   to the public service commission for approval
   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
   Section 1. Section 66 of the public service law is amended by adding a
 new subdivision 33 to read as follows:
   33.  (A)  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  DEPARTMENT'S  RULES  AND   REGULATIONS
 CONCERNING  CONFIDENTIALITY  OF  SETTLEMENT  DISCUSSIONS  IN  RATE  CASE
 PROCEEDINGS, BOTH DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE UTILITY SHALL  PROVIDE  SEPA-
 RATE,  SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
 QUESTIONS SEEKING EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATIONS RELATED TO  ELEMENTS  OF  THE
 JOINT  PROPOSAL.  THIS  REQUIREMENT INCLUDES INQUIRIES COMPARING WRITTEN
 TESTIMONIES OF DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE UTILITY TO  THE  JOINT  PROPOSAL
 AND  REQUESTING EVIDENCE AND A RATIONALE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT AN IDEN-
 TIFIED ASPECT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE
 LAWS AND OFFERS BENEFITS TO UTILITY CONSUMERS EQUAL TO OR  GREATER  THAN
 THOSE  PROVIDED  BY  ITS TESTIMONIAL POSITIONS. DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE
 UTILITY SHALL, IN THEIR  RESPECTIVE  FILINGS  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  JOINT
 PROPOSAL,  EXPLAIN HOW ANY CONTESTED ASPECT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL DELIV-
 ERS OUTCOMES FOR UTILITY CONSUMERS  THAT  ARE  IN  COMPLIANCE  WITH  ALL
 APPLICABLE LAWS AND ARE AT LEAST AS FAVORABLE AS WOULD HAVE RESULTED HAD
 ITS TESTIMONIAL POSITION BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
   (B)  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  COMMISSION'S ORDER ON PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
 FOR SETTLEMENTS ISSUED IN NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-TWO IN CASE 90-M-0255,
 THE COMMISSION SHALL ENSURE IN ITS ORDER APPROVING OR MODIFYING A  JOINT
 PROPOSAL  THAT  EACH INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL ADOPTED IN
 ITS RATE PLAN ORDER IS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IN  THE  RECORD,
 INCLUDING  PARTIES'  WRITTEN  AND  ORAL TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS, THE BEST
 OUTCOME FOR UTILITY CONSUMERS AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH  ALL  APPLICABLE
 LAWS.
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                            LBD15466-01-6
 A. 11468                            2
   (C)  AS  USED  IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE THE
 FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
   (I)  "SETTLEMENT  DISCUSSIONS" SHALL MEAN A SET OF FORMAL NEGOTIATIONS
 OF THE PARTIES ORGANIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT IS INTENDED  TO  RESOLVE
 ALL  OR SOME OF THE ISSUES IN ANY RATE PROCEEDING AND LEAD TO THE FILING
 OF A JOINT PROPOSAL FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL.
   (II) "JOINT PROPOSAL" SHALL MEAN  A  NEGOTIATED  SETTLEMENT  AGREEMENT
 SIGNED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES IN A RATE PROCEEDING.
   §  2.  Section 80 of the public service law is amended by adding a new
 subdivision 13 to read as follows:
   13.  (A)  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  DEPARTMENT'S  RULES  AND   REGULATIONS
 CONCERNING  CONFIDENTIALITY  OF  SETTLEMENT  DISCUSSIONS  IN  RATE  CASE
 PROCEEDINGS, BOTH DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE UTILITY SHALL  PROVIDE  SEPA-
 RATE,  SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
 QUESTIONS SEEKING EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATIONS RELATED TO  ELEMENTS  OF  THE
 JOINT  PROPOSAL.  THIS  REQUIREMENT INCLUDES INQUIRIES COMPARING WRITTEN
 TESTIMONIES OF DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE UTILITY TO  THE  JOINT  PROPOSAL
 AND  REQUESTING EVIDENCE AND A RATIONALE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT AN IDEN-
 TIFIED ASPECT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE
 LAWS AND OFFERS BENEFITS TO UTILITY CONSUMERS EQUAL TO OR  GREATER  THAN
 THOSE  PROVIDED  BY  ITS TESTIMONIAL POSITIONS. DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE
 UTILITY SHALL, IN THEIR  RESPECTIVE  FILINGS  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  JOINT
 PROPOSAL,  EXPLAIN HOW ANY CONTESTED ASPECT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL DELIV-
 ERS OUTCOMES FOR UTILITY CONSUMERS  THAT  ARE  IN  COMPLIANCE  WITH  ALL
 APPLICABLE LAWS AND ARE AT LEAST AS FAVORABLE AS WOULD HAVE RESULTED HAD
 ITS TESTIMONIAL POSITION BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
   (B)  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  COMMISSION'S ORDER ON PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
 FOR SETTLEMENTS ISSUED IN NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-TWO IN CASE 90-M-0255,
 THE COMMISSION SHALL ENSURE IN ITS ORDER APPROVING OR MODIFYING A  JOINT
 PROPOSAL  THAT  EACH INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL ADOPTED IN
 ITS RATE PLAN ORDER IS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IN  THE  RECORD,
 INCLUDING  PARTIES'  WRITTEN  AND  ORAL TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS, THE BEST
 OUTCOME FOR UTILITY CONSUMERS AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH  ALL  APPLICABLE
 LAWS.
   (C)  AS  USED  IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE THE
 FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
   (I) "SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS" SHALL MEAN A SET OF  FORMAL  NEGOTIATIONS
 OF  THE  PARTIES ORGANIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT IS INTENDED TO RESOLVE
 ALL OR SOME OF THE ISSUES IN ANY RATE PROCEEDING AND LEAD TO THE  FILING
 OF A JOINT PROPOSAL FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL.
   (II)  "JOINT  PROPOSAL"  SHALL  MEAN A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
 SIGNED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES IN A RATE PROCEEDING.
   § 3. Section 89-c of the public service law is amended by adding a new
 subdivision 18 to read as follows:
   18.  (A)  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  DEPARTMENT'S  RULES  AND   REGULATIONS
 CONCERNING  CONFIDENTIALITY  OF  SETTLEMENT  DISCUSSIONS  IN  RATE  CASE
 PROCEEDINGS, BOTH DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE UTILITY SHALL  PROVIDE  SEPA-
 RATE,  SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
 QUESTIONS SEEKING EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATIONS RELATED TO  ELEMENTS  OF  THE
 JOINT  PROPOSAL.  THIS  REQUIREMENT INCLUDES INQUIRIES COMPARING WRITTEN
 TESTIMONIES OF DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE UTILITY TO  THE  JOINT  PROPOSAL
 AND  REQUESTING EVIDENCE AND A RATIONALE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT AN IDEN-
 TIFIED ASPECT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE
 LAWS AND OFFERS BENEFITS TO UTILITY CONSUMERS EQUAL TO OR  GREATER  THAN
 THOSE  PROVIDED  BY  ITS TESTIMONIAL POSITIONS. DEPARTMENT STAFF AND THE
 UTILITY SHALL, IN THEIR  RESPECTIVE  FILINGS  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  JOINT
 A. 11468                            3
 PROPOSAL,  EXPLAIN HOW ANY CONTESTED ASPECT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL DELIV-
 ERS OUTCOMES FOR UTILITY CONSUMERS  THAT  ARE  IN  COMPLIANCE  WITH  ALL
 APPLICABLE LAWS AND ARE AT LEAST AS FAVORABLE AS WOULD HAVE RESULTED HAD
 ITS TESTIMONIAL POSITION BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
   (B)  NOTWITHSTANDING  THE  COMMISSION'S ORDER ON PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
 FOR SETTLEMENTS ISSUED IN NINETEEN HUNDRED NINETY-TWO IN CASE 90-M-0255,
 THE COMMISSION SHALL ENSURE IN ITS ORDER APPROVING OR MODIFYING A  JOINT
 PROPOSAL  THAT  EACH INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL ADOPTED IN
 ITS RATE PLAN ORDER IS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IN  THE  RECORD,
 INCLUDING  PARTIES'  WRITTEN  AND  ORAL TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS, THE BEST
 OUTCOME FOR UTILITY CONSUMERS AND IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH  ALL  APPLICABLE
 LAWS.
   (C)  AS  USED  IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE FOLLOWING TERMS SHALL HAVE THE
 FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
   (I) "SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS" SHALL MEAN A SET OF  FORMAL  NEGOTIATIONS
 OF  THE  PARTIES ORGANIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT IS INTENDED TO RESOLVE
 ALL OR SOME OF THE ISSUES IN ANY RATE PROCEEDING AND LEAD TO THE  FILING
 OF A JOINT PROPOSAL FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL.
   (II)  "JOINT  PROPOSAL"  SHALL  MEAN A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
 SIGNED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES IN A RATE PROCEEDING.
   § 4. This act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after
 it shall have become a law, and shall apply to public service commission
 proceedings initiated on or after such date. Effective immediately,  the
 addition,  amendment  and/or  repeal of any rule or regulation necessary
 for the implementation of this act on its effective date are  authorized
 to be made and completed on or before such effective date.

Requires both the department of public service staff and the utility to provide separate, substantive responses to discovery requests and cross-examination questions seeking evidence or explanations related to elements of the joint proposal and explain how any contested aspect of the joint proposal delivers outcomes for utility consumers that are in compliance with all applicable laws and are at least as favorable as would have resulted had its testimonial position been approved by the public service commission.

Sponsors

Asm. Edward Braunstein (D) sponsors A 11468 alone.

Committees

A 11468 went before 1 committee: Corporations, Authorities and Commissions.

Corporations, Authorities and Commissions
Corporations, Authorities and Commissions
Referred to · May 20, 2026

History

A 11468 has taken 1 action since May 20, 2026.

ChamberAction
May 20, 2026
Assembly
referred to corporations, authorities and commissions

Votes

A 11468 has not gone to a roll call.

Source: nysenate.gov · legiscan.com