Asm. Philip Palmesano

Argued the bill will increase energy costs, limit customer options to convert from oil to natural gas, and contradicts public preference for energy choice and affordability; cited a poll showing 71% of New Yorkers oppose a natural gas ban.

Generic time-based restoration targets fail to account for storm-specific circumstances (poles down, flooding, ice, snow removal needs) that utilities cannot assess until they arrive at the scene. Worker safety must be the first priority, and utilities already have financial incentives to restore service quickly. The PSC has existing authority to implement such requirements if deemed necessary.

Questioned budget growth ($80 billion increase over five years), out-year deficits, and tax policy risks including personal income tax increases (10.3% to 10.75% for $5-25M incomes; 10.9% to 11.75% for $25M-$100M), corporate tax increases affecting 8,000 businesses, and financial sector taxes amid evidence of out-migration. Also raised concerns about energy policy costs ($4,000+ home heating increases), CLCPA mandates, zero-emission school bus conversion timelines, and corrections workforce retention issues.

Questioned budget sustainability, noting $80 billion growth over five years and $30.3 billion cumulative out-year gaps. Raised concerns about tax increases on high earners and corporations amid evidence of out-migration, financial sector flight to other states, manufacturing competitiveness, and questioned whether energy policy and corrections workforce provisions adequately address stated crises.

Opposed the bill, arguing that true transparency would require utilities to display all green energy mandates on bills. Acknowledged some improvements but continued to vote in the negative.

The bill duplicates existing PSC inspection processes, lacks evidence the current process is inadequate, imposes excessive penalties without PSC consultation, creates an unvetted complaint mechanism vulnerable to false reports, and could delay broadband deployment through excessive documentation and compliance burdens.

Cited the original sponsor's memo explicitly referencing the 2024 NY-17 congressional election and Anthony Frascone's ballot access as the genesis for the bill.

Objected to socializing costs across ratepayers statewide, arguing NYC and Westchester should fund their own projects rather than burden upstate seniors and disabled veterans. Criticized lack of funding cap, NYSERDA accountability, and broader state energy policy driving up utility rates through mandates and surcharges.

Argued the bill increases housing costs for new homeowners, jeopardizes grid reliability by discouraging gas connections when NYISO warns of reliability concerns, eliminates union construction jobs, and shifts fixed infrastructure costs to fewer ratepayers, raising rates for all. He contended that new customers help cover operational and capital costs, and that 71 percent of New Yorkers want to keep natural gas as part of an energy portfolio.

Argued the bill adds unnecessary bureaucracy and regulatory costs that will be passed to consumers during an affordability crisis. Contended manufacturers already comply with robust Federal consumer protection laws, making state-level regulation redundant and potentially conflicting with FTC standards. Questioned whether the bill addresses a real problem, noting no documented consumer harm or AG complaints were cited.

Palmesano supported the bill but urged the majority to prioritize the death gamble bill for state corrections officers, which has passed twice and been vetoed twice. He argued COs have more difficult and dangerous jobs and questioned why the Assembly accepts gubernatorial vetoes rather than overriding them.

Noted the Governor vetoed identical bills in 2022 and 2023, citing duplication of existing consumer protection efforts and concerns costs would be passed to ratepayers. Questioned whether the bill differs from another consumer advocate bill and whether existing agencies (Office of Consumer Services, Special Counsel for Ratepayer Protection, Utility Intervention Unit, Public Utility Law Project) adequately represent ratepayers.

Argued the bill is duplicative of existing consumer advocacy entities (Department of Public Service, Utility Intervention Unit, Public Utility Law Project, Attorney General) and creates unchecked PSC discretion with no cost estimates, funding caps, or limits on intervenor numbers. Contended costs will burden ratepayers already facing rates 40% above national average, and questioned whether intervenors can address green energy mandates and electrification costs driving rate increases.

Noted the bill is identical to versions vetoed by the Governor in 2022 and 2023, who cited duplication of existing consumer protection efforts and concerns about costs being passed to ratepayers. Questioned whether existing agencies including the Office of Consumer Services, Statewide Special Counsel, and Public Utility Law Project adequately represent ratepayers.

Argued the bill is duplicative of existing consumer advocacy organizations and lacks cost estimates, funding caps, or limits on intervenor numbers, giving the PSC unchecked discretion. Contended costs will be borne by ratepayers already facing some of the nation's highest rates. Criticized the bill for not addressing underlying policy drivers of rate increases, including green energy mandates that account for one-third of utility bills in taxes and assessments.

The bill is duplicative of five existing state entities already representing consumer interests. Rising utility rates are caused by state policies like the CLCPA, not utility companies, so a new advocate will not save money. The bill lacks a cost estimate and the Governor has vetoed it twice before for being redundant and wasteful.

The bill is duplicative of five existing state entities already representing consumer interests. Rising utility rates are caused by state policies like the CLCPA, not utilities, so a new advocate won't help. The bill lacks a cost estimate and funding mechanism.

Asked whether the sponsor believes DEC does not regulate thoroughly enough, implying skepticism about the need for legislative action.

Questioned whether PSC already has sufficient regulatory authority through existing proceedings and methodologies to address estimated billing without legislative mandate. Noted that PSC regulations already provide disincentives against prolonged estimated billing and require affirmative steps to obtain actual readings.

Raised multiple concerns: PSC already has regulatory authority; Central Hudson's estimated billing rate is only 0.07 percent; the bill lacks exemptions for health/safety issues, equipment failure, and severe weather; the free-service penalty could incentivize meter tampering; and the real issue is rising utility costs driven by green energy mandates, not estimated billing. He argued the bill does not address constituent concerns about affordability and reliability.

Raised concerns that 'public works website' is undefined and questioned whether utilities performing excavation work would be required to pay prevailing wage for hauling, potentially increasing ratepayer costs. Voted in the negative pending clarification of these issues.

Raised concerns that the bill's language is overly broad and could require fee postings for private residential chargers, apartment complexes, and employee charging stations that receive public funds but are not publicly accessible, creating unintended consequences and added costs to consumers.

Supported the consumer advocate provision but opposed the bill because the Minority Party should have appointments to the board given its representation of 6 million people and the significant impact of state energy policy decisions, citing precedent from the Climate Action Council. Detailed concerns about energy costs, grid reliability, and unfunded mandates resulting from state climate policy.

Argued the bill imposes generic, arbitrary time-based targets that fail to account for different storm types, damage severity, and accessibility challenges. Contended existing PSC authority, 2021 storm hardening legislation, and penalty provisions are sufficient. Raised concerns that generic targets could prioritize speed over worker safety and increase ratepayer costs. Criticized green energy mandates and state policies driving up utility rates.

The bill's burden actually falls on utilities, not ESCOs, since utilities do the billing. It may confuse customers on fixed-rate contracts who see monthly comparisons and attempt to switch, incurring early termination fees. The PSC is already investigating ESCO practices and should complete that review before new mandates. A better approach would be the