May 19, 2026 · 5,787 words · 2 speakers · 78 segments
That proceeding, they evaluated, they were examining the adequacy of the existing protections and were looking to standardize protections and basically looked at ways they could establish uniform among utilities, correct? Wasn't that their goal? Isn't that what they tried to do?
Yes, they could have argued. They did put in a provision. In my opinion, it wasn't very consumer-friendly, and this is why we are here today in this chamber talking about this bill.
You know, we need to make sure that, you know, we are being smart about these vulnerable communities and these workers. So, you know, I've seen the recent coverage on these proceedings, and I felt that we could do more to make sure that the customer or the rate payer is put in first. So in instances such as these, you know, we step in and we ensure that residential consumers are sufficiently protected.
So on that same note, I know you said you saw parts of the proceeding. In March of 2026 this year, the PSC announced guidance really similar to the goals of this bill, correct, as far as moving forward in dealing with extreme heat. And some of those provisions were paused service terminations in heat islands due to nonpayment the two days following any day reaching or exceeding 90 degrees, paused termination for nonpayment for residential rate payers on days that are forecasted to be or exceed 90 degrees and to implement uniform extreme heat protections for residential electric and water customers. That's what the PSC came up with, their expertise who deal with us on a regular basis. Are you saying the PSC with that provision is not providing enough protection to customers based on your analysis of the bill?
Speaking with stakeholders, speaking with nonprofit organizations, we felt that there's more that we can do to protect individuals in New York State.
What more do you want to do?
And this is the bill in chief that we have before us. The bill that we're discussing puts the consumer first, puts the customer first, and ensures that we are having conversations about protections that ensure that individuals in these extreme weather events have the opportunity to have access to electricity or other utilities.
So you don't feel what the PSC came up with based on the proceedings, based on the feedback from those stakeholders who participated in the proceedings. So that's when they have these proceedings, they participate. They let the stakeholders participate in the proceedings, which is the way we should do things rather than the legislature constantly trying to micromanage it. The proceedings takes all that input from the stakeholders, consumer, utilities, and the like to come up with these recommendations. And you're saying what they put in place is not sufficient enough. Is that correct?
Within this legislation, we do more to protect some meter customers in lower temperatures and longer shutoff protections. So with the wording of these bills, I do think this signals and sends in a strong message that we are here to protect people in extreme weather events. And there have been many times where we have difference of opinions with the PSC.
Probably you have.
I have.
Sure.
And this is why we're a legislature. This is why we come here every day from all parts of the state.
I understand.
Convene and discuss legislation.
Now, I wanted to ask you, I mean, given what you're trying to do with this bill, and I understand the intentions, and I appreciate that. In knowing what the PSC was doing,
did you have any conversations with the PSC about your legislation Did they say this was necessary or that they were addressing it We had dialogue with many stakeholders and this is not a new bill This has been before the legislature I understand Even before myself, I actually inherited this bill from a member who left. So there were many opportunities for not only myself but other individuals to have conversations on this bill. So this is not just an effort that just was sparked yesterday.
No, I know.
This has been a long conversation and advocacy and also case uses and incidents that we have seen where during these extreme weather events, individuals should not be vulnerable to termination and that we have smart policies that not only protect the customer, but also protect the workers who are out there doing the job.
Aren't you concerned by the changes you're making? You're taking away the flexibility from the PSC to address those situations? because, for example, RG&E on Lake Ontario, they get lake effect snow. Lipa down the line, they might not get lake effect snow. So now you're putting specific parameters in place, and it's not always a not necessarily one-size-fits-all approach, but now you're doing specific prescription to address the problem instead of allowing the flexibility of the PSC to do their job to address specific situations as they come forward. Is that problematic that we're taking away that flexibility from the PSC by having specific prescriptions as you have outlined in this bill?
I mean, extreme weather is felt in the same way in all different parts of the state. I think 32 degrees is 32 degrees, whether it's upstate New York or on Long Island. And so, you know, and also if you talk about extreme heat, extreme heat is extreme heat. So I'm not understanding the intention of the question, if you want to further elaborate.
And what I'm trying to say is that, you know, there's different areas that have different, I understand what you're seeing about temperature, but if you have specific prescriptions for the temperature and you don't allow the flexibility where the, like, we're dealing with, like, lake effect snow from coming to Lake Ontario, Erie County versus other areas, you need to allow that flexibility for the PSC to work within the context. It's not just about temperatures, it's about conditions and the like as well. That's kind of what I was getting at, but I'll move on.
And just a response. A floor doesn't prevent flexibility. It sets a minimum standard. It's not like we're setting a ceiling. We're just setting a floor. So 32 degrees is extremely cold and 85 degrees. I mean, if you want to go lower, if you want to go to 75, I'm all about that. I'm not going to say no. And as you said, the PSC said 90 degrees and us going down to 85 is an acknowledgement to the utility that we understand that some people may endure some of the extreme heat temperatures. And like I said, we're trying to provide for some flexibility, but this is a floor. This is a minimum, not a maximum.
Are you any concerns that with the changes that are being made when people are – because the PSC has to balance terminations with the health and well-being of individuals. if you have longer periods of time where people aren't paying bills and you can't do shutoffs, not necessarily shutoffs, but then you're going to have more people in arrears. Aren't you concerned that this is going to cause more arrears? And we already have a significant amount of arrears already in the utility industry and for customers across the state. Isn't that a concern that we're just going to have more people in more arrears?
I just want to give acknowledgement to PULP and other organizations that are helping people in the arrears. We in this legislature really care about making sure that we advocate for individuals, and we are making many efforts to ensure that we fund programs. And utility companies also have a variety of tools at their disposal so that they can choose to And there are proactive activities such as if they see a customer struggling so when you get to the point of termination you been struggling for some time they can enroll individuals, customers, into monthly programs like EOP and EIP and EOP.
Sure.
And so there are tools and other mechanisms that utilities have to help customers in arrear, And I would love to be partners in government to ensure that we can provide more money or more support or find ways to bring down utility prices in New York State. You know, we're doing some of that work now, and, you know, there's more to be done. But, you know, there are tools, and, you know, I'm looking forward to working to make sure that we have that. And we need outside advertisement. We need community engagement with DSS and nonprofits so that customers know that, you know, there's support available to them.
And I will say, and I understand, but when you get in these certain agreements, whether it's heat, there are certain things that need to be met. And I think the concern is if you have longer periods of time with terminations, it could just affect the ability for people to qualify for those programs. And that's where we're worried about.
And I also acknowledge there's also a public health cost to it. So there is a cost to extreme weather events. So in extreme heat, people go to the hospital. In extreme colds, you know, people all of a sudden use alternative methods to heat their home that may cause fire. And so, you know, there are other outside costs to terminations. And so we have to be cautious at just looking at the arrears. We have to look at the public health crisis that's created when we turn off utilities for individuals that can cause other costs to the state. Is that okay?
Not much. All right. One last question. I just want to clarify. I know you said you talked to a lot of stakeholders. I can't remember if you answered my question. Did you talk specifically to the PSC or the Department of Public Service about your bill?
We did outreach to many individual stakeholders.
Including the PSC?
We've talked to many individuals about this. Countless individuals, utilities, government organizations.
The PSC?
And also talked to different entities, and this bill has been out. So we've had many conversations with individuals about this.
And I understand you talked to a lot of individuals. Did you talk to the PSC specifically?
We've reached out to many individuals. We've had multiple conversations. Madam Speaker, on the bill. On the bill.
Thank you to the sponsor for the questions. I appreciate it. I certainly understand the intention of this legislation. I get it. But the fact of the matter is the PSC already authorizes procedures, and the utilities already have procedures in place to deal with cold and heat. and identify vulnerable populations. The utilities are having these protections in place that have to be approved by the PSC. In January of 2025, because the PSC recognized this was an issue that needed to be addressed because we had things on the books through the regulatory process for coal, they said we need to do a similar thing for the heat. And in that proceeding, they reviewed the current procedures and programs regarding customer protections from extreme heat events. And the goal was to really look at and examine these and to try to make a more standardized process and to try to bring more uniformity with utilities. So from that, in March of 2026, the PSC announced guidance similar to the goal of this bill. And I will read some of those things again, and I think it's important. This is what the PSC... One moment, Mr. Palmasano. Ms. Lunsford. Thank you Madam Speaker Can you have the Higher Education Committee please make their way to the speaker Higher Ed Committee members please make your way to the speaker conference room Quietly Higher Ed Committee members speaker conference room Mr Palmasano Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, my colleagues. I appreciate it. Just some of the highlights that came out of the PSC guidance was they would pause service terminations in heat islands due to nonpayment the two days following any day reaching or exceed 90 degrees, pause terminations for non-payment for residential rate payers on days that are forecasted to be or exceed 90 degrees, and implement uniform extreme heat protections for residential electric and water customers. Right now, as I mentioned, there's 19 states have similar programs. Those temperatures range 90 degrees in New Jersey. The other ones are 95 to 105 degrees. But New York decided arbitrarily to pick the number 85 degrees. And from that, there are issues that could come about. I'm concerned, again, this bill will delete statutory authority for the PSC to prescribe a prescription by forecast and basically allows this prescription that's in this bill to take away the flexibility of the PSC to address case-by-case basis and look into different regions because it's not a one-size-fits-all approach. The PSC, obviously, I don't think was consulted on this bill. They don't have to be. But I think we would have wanted to talk to the experts who are implementing these types of programs and are dealing with it and addressing it. Sometimes I just feel like we get over abundance on some of these policies. When the PSC has the ability to do the job, they are doing the job. They responded to the need that's out there. My concern is we're taking away the flexibility of the PSC to do these things. I think from this and the changes that are made that it could result in increased arrears, making it harder for people to make payments under utility bills, and addressing that's going to be cost-shifted to other people. But I think there's a whole bunch of things that could create an operational confusion along the likes of those areas. But I think there's more that we need to do. The PSC has to balance all these things. I think they have the ability to do it. Again, I appreciate what the sponsor is trying to do. But I think given where we are, and as I mentioned before, too, like even on the cold side of it, they have to go through all this. Like determinations may proceed only if a representative from the utility or municipality makes a diligent effort to contact an adult resident of the customer's premises at least 72 hours prior to termination, makes a personal visit at time of termination, and provides the customer with information on the protections available. Therefore, vulnerable individuals and ratepayers who would suffer severe health or safety consequences as a result of this termination of service, that's what the PSC is already doing. I think it addresses the goals of what the sponsor is trying to do. But when we have a narrow scope and have a specific prescription to the problem that takes away flexibility from the PSC to do their job to address these challenges, I just think that's going to cause more problems than we already have. So for those reasons, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, and again, I appreciate the sponsor's passion and interest in this bill, but for the reasons I mentioned and the reasons my colleague brought up in the debate, I will be voting against this legislation because it's not necessary. The PSC didn't ask for it. The PSC wasn't consulted. The PSC is already doing the job. For all those reasons, I will be voting in the negative, and I urge my colleagues to consider the same vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Bologna? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few quick questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Of course.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So in here, we kind of talk about shutting off service. Why would a utility company shut off service? Is nonpayment a potential reason for shutting off service? Yes. Okay. So if someone can't pay prior and it's leading a utility company
to shut off service and they still can't pay after the fact, what happens to that? You know, the utility company is still providing service. So who ultimately pays for that? Where does that payment come from for the provision of service? You know, I don't know if, and I just want to go back to the point of, you know, on Long Island, there was a PSE, Long Island Supervisor, in a conference in March who, on tape, was saying that in order to get customers to pay late bills, he would do different tactics and was being comical about it, saying that people think much better in the dark. And that same supervisor said that he uses a lot of different strategies to get people to pay depending on where they live. So if I want, and this is a quote, so if I want to treat the Rockaways different and I want to get out to the Hamptons or Montauk, I can do that. And so when we talk about the standard of utility shutoffs, it's different for different places and as you can see now there's nefarious practices that exist and so what we're doing here in this piece of legislation is creating a floor for terminations and there's a lot of different modalities and supports before the individual gets to the point of termination but what we're saying is that during extreme weather events so irrespective if you can pay or not we're human beings we should have humanity we should acknowledge that vulnerable individuals, whether they have asthma, medical conditions, they're poor, they shouldn't be suffering in extreme weather events. And so I understand the thought of financing money, but we also have to think of the outside costs that exist when that person goes into an emergency room, which to me, the emergency room visits are extremely costly to New Yorkers and has been a problem. So we have to look at preventative measures to ensure that we're protecting New Yorkers because at the end of the day we're paying more out-of-pocket for those individuals if they fall into a bad situation. I agree with you and I hope you agree with me in saying that some of the preventative measures we actually probably should be taking in this chamber to lower energy bills altogether so people don't don't end up paying you know have to pay higher higher cost but I digress. And I acknowledge that with a prior individual in the debate where we said I'm more I think in this house we really care about making sure that we lessen the impact of utilities and provide utility affordability in which we're making many efforts to do so and there's much more that we could do on both ends making sure that we provide utility arrears program making sure we lower the cost of utilities but then also looking at ways that we can you know prevent public health crises during terminations or extreme weather events. So if you'll humor me just
And again, I completely understand what you're saying as far as balancing humanity and the financial standpoint of this. But just from a logistic standpoint and on paper, I just kind of want to get to a place where, so if someone doesn't pay, we're kind of talking about arrears. What ultimately happens with that? That service has to be paid for somewhere. And what I'm kind of getting to is ultimately that is going to be dispersed amongst all rate payers. That kind of the point that I ultimately trying to make So it going to be paid for somewhere And I guess I just I really wanted that point on record And do you have any concern that as utilities whether they're applying for new rate cases or they're adjusting their rates in the future, that this is something that they may consider when setting their rates in the future?
So, you know, I really want to speak to the bill at hand. So this legislation doesn't forgive debt or eliminate debt payment obligation. It simply just pauses shut off during dangerous weather conditions when losing service could threaten health and safety. And so, you know, arrears may be socialized, but again, there are tools that the company can use. You know, as we said before, we just you don't just individuals start struggling and utilities start talking to individuals. And there's programs, there's funds, there's monies out there that can help people in the rears. And during extreme events, like, for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, this legislature stepped forward and provided utility or rear support.
I understand. You know, I definitely think there's more that we could do as a state. and I'm looking forward to voting on a budget that does more to bring back and bring support for utility companies.
But what I say is that at the end of the day, this legislation doesn't forgive debt, but it also makes sure that we don't create a public health crisis at the end of the day is a burden on all the taxpayers. The last thing we want to see is individuals in a hospital or in a medical situation where we're spending taxpayer resources when we could have prevented this by just allowing them for two days before, a day of, and two days after having the utilities?
Well, thank you so much. Madam Speaker, I'm going to go on the bill if that's all right. On the bill. My colleague said a very important thing right there, the word socialization. And what is concerning to me is that this is an area where there is potential for the socialization of utility costs amongst the community. You know, I know that we're talking about heat here, but again, if we're referencing regionally, in the area I'm in, Western New York, power goes out. And what is ironic to me of this bill is that we're talking about cost is something that shouldn't be a barrier to utilities, electricity, energy, but yet we're systematically in this body continuing to force the electrification, which is a much less reliable energy source than something like natural gas would be. So when the power goes out in western New York or because of an electrical outage, no one seems too concerned in this building about that. So I would be remiss if I didn't say that I have a lot of just fundamental issues with how we treat certain things depending on our viewpoint of it, because we're continually trying to ban natural gas, which is still the most reliable energy source. And in times when it is freezing out, there is a blizzard and the power does go out. Guess what? Natural gas is still an option. So I actually very much do appreciate where the sponsor is trying to come from with the piece of legislation, because I don't think that people's power should go out for a natural disaster event, for a lack of payment. But the fact of the matter is that we have already taken steps in this chamber to ensure that people's power are going to go out. So it's just very frustrating to watch. And I really wish, really wish we would take a step back and reexamine some of our energy policies and our position on natural gas in particular. So with that thank you very much Madam Speaker Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will not be supporting this piece of legislation, but if there are exceptions, members may cast that vote at their desks now. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lunsford. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in support of this legislation. If you would like to deviate from that position, you may do so at your desks. Thank you. Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 97, nays 44. The bill is passed. Page 37, calendar 481. Clerk will read. Assembly number 10411A, calendar 481, Mr. Magnarelli. An act to amend the general business law. An explanation has been requested, Mr. Magnarelli. Yes, Madam Chair. This bill prohibits car manufacturers from charging the fee for use of components already installed on the vehicle at the time of purchase. Mr. Slater. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some clarifying questions? Will the sponsor yield?
Yes.
Sponsor yields. Thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate it. Just a few clarifying questions on the bill here. Lines 13 through 16 talk about motor vehicle features. So can we just give me an example of what a motor vehicle feature is?
Heated seats.
So what we're saying here is that a dealer cannot require a consumer from a subscription payment for heated seats. Is that the argument that's being made?
Correct.
And are there other features that you've been made aware of that a car dealer would require a subscription service for, like power windows or side airbags?
They could. They could. All of those things, they could. And they have charged car owners for heated seats in other countries. Ford announced options for its Blue Cruise hands-free driving technology. It would require either $2,100 in financing or $800 a year and $75 a month. Three years of General Motors Super Cruise Highway hands-free system, again, would cost about $2,200 up front. Tesla charges $12,000 up front or $199 a month for self-driving software. Now, these are all things that are coming. They're new technologies, but you're paying for them when you buy the car. They're already there, and there's nothing that has to be done after they turn the car over to you. If there is something that has to be done like if you doing maps or things like that for a subscription or Wi types of things entertainment in your car those are different Those are things that you're going to be changing month after month after month, and they're going to charge you for it. But things that are already there in the car, you paid for it, they want to charge you month after month after that.
So to make sure I'm clear, so then the OnStar feature, which requires a subscription, that will still be able to be a subscription service, even though the capability of OnStar is still already in the car? Yes.
Same with satellite radio?
Correct.
Okay.
What about activation fees? Would one-time unlock fees? Are they still permitted?
I'm sorry, I didn't.
So again, going back to use the example of Tesla with their software, right? So if Tesla then says, I think you said it was like $12,000. So if Tesla adds the $12,000 as a one-time payment to unlock that feature, would that be allowed?
If it's not a subscription, it's part of the cost of the car.
Okay, great. And what about for lease applications? How would this provision interact with lease agreements that package certain features? It would be the same thing.
They can't charge you monthly for something that's already in the car.
So if I have a lease and I pay a monthly, as a part of the lease package, is a monthly fee for tire service. For what?
And tire service or tire protection, would that be allowed?
That's different.
Can you explain to me how that's different?
Tire service?
Yes. That's not something that's already in the car. You're paying for like an insurance, like if something happens to a tire, somebody will come out. Correct. But that's not in the car. So it has to be physically inside the car.
It's got to be a part of the car that you buy.
Okay, I understand.
What about on resale? If a feature was activated by a previous owner, does that access remain with the vehicle upon resale?
Yes.
Great. And just two more questions. On the enforcement side, is there a specific reason you chose the Department of State as the enforcement agency rather than the DMV or the Attorney General's office?
I think this is something that we have discussed, and it was in the veto message of the governor that she wanted someone who would be able to promulgate the rules and regulations, and we felt that the Department of State was the answer.
And so that's my next question. I appreciate you leading me there. So going to the veto message, the governor did say that the bill does not specify which agency provided with rulemaking authority to regulate a complex market. So the bill has changed in that respect by identifying Department of State.
Correct.
All right. Well, thank you very much for clarifying these questions. Madam Speaker, if I can just quickly go on the bill. On the bill. Obviously, the thought of having to pay monthly for heated seats I think is laughable. And so making sure that our consumers are protected from these types of schemes is something I think is just common sense While I can understand now from the questions that were answered by my colleague what changes in the bill were made to address the veto I think it obviously makes it a stronger consumer protection piece of legislation. And for that reason, I think we can all understand why it's important to support this piece of legislation. I'll be doing so, and I hope my colleagues do as well. Thank you. Thank you. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 90th day. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 139, nays 2. The bill is passed. Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're going to go to page 16, calendar 116, with Mr. Weprin for what will hopefully be one final bill. Thank you. Thank you. Page 16, calendar number 116. Clerk will read. Assembly number 3687B, calendar 116, Mr. Weprin, an act to amend the insurance law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect on January 1st, 2027. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Lunsford. Madam Speaker, could you please call the Real Property Tax Committee to the Speaker's conference? Real Property Tax Committee members, make your way to the speaker's conference room, Real Property Tax Speaker's conference room. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Ayes 141, nays 0. The bill is passed. Resolutions, page 3, clerk will read. Assembly number 1385 rules at the request of Mr. Saez. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim December 2, 2026, a special education teacher awareness day in the state of New York. Mr. Saez, on the resolution. Thank you very much. Again, I rise as an educator. we often acknowledge the work that administrators and teachers and CSCA performs day to day. But one special category of individuals, teachers, that truly have the biggest impact, and I experienced this for some 30 40 years in education our special education teachers They work with each child recognizes their special needs their deficiencies their limitations and very often recognizing that children, whether it's a case of autism or a case of speech impairment or cases involving emotional or physical disabilities, these teachers put together an individualized learning plan, also known as the IEP. And it is through their efforts that we're able to maximize each child's ability to advance academically and gain rightful employment and be productive. So we've come a long way. We heard many of our colleagues over the last years talk about how much we've expanded services for special ed, for people with disabilities. This is a recognition to the many teachers that truly play a major role in helping expedite and expand these services. Thank you. Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1397 rules at the request of Ms. Solange. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 19, 2026 as Human Milk Day in the state of New York in conjunction with the observance of World Human Milk Day. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1398 rules at the request of Ms. Cruz. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim the month of May 2026 as Hepatitis B Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1399 rules at the request of Ms. Seawright. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim July 2026 as RIP Current Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1400 rules at the request of Ms. Buttonshaw. legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 21 2026 as a day of peace in the state of New York On the resolution all those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1401 rules at the request of Mr. DiStefano. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim September 2026 as Dystonia Awareness Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Assembly number 1402, rules at the request of Ms. Warner. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim December 2026 as Impaired Driving Prevention Month in the state of New York. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. No, the resolution is adopted. Ms. Lunsford. Madam Speaker, do we have any further housekeeping or resolutions? We have no housekeeping. We have a number of resolutions before the House. Without objections, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Ms. Lunsford. I now move that the Assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene tomorrow, May 20th at 10 a.m., tomorrow being a session day. 10 a.m. tomorrow on Ms. Lunsford's motion. The House stands adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.