News Stories

In a press release the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) states “[i]n keeping with legislation signed by Governor Kathy Hochul to protect consumers from surprise price increases to their energy bills, the New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today amended the New York Uniform Business Practices (UBP) rules and the Standard Renewal Notice to be consistent with provisions of New York’s General Business Law that created a bill of rights for energy service company (ESCO) consumers.”

“The 2023 law and the new amendments approved today will further reinforce consumer protections related to affordable prices and requires ESCOs to increase the transparency of the process under which an ESCO contract with a customer changes.”

“The legislation signed by Governor Hochul amended the General Business Law to declare a change in the price or product type made to an energy service contract to be a “material” change which would require the consent of the customer. The bill also includes a provision that the energy provider shall disclose information about the current price of services, any proposed price changes, distribution prices, and where the customer may view their past bills at the time of renewal.”

By this order  the Commission adopts modifications to the Uniform Business Practices: 

1. The Department of Public Service Staff Proposal for Implementing Stronger Price Transparency for Customers, as filed on March 26, 2024, is adopted, with modifications, as discussed in the body of this Order.
2. Revisions to the Uniform Business Practices are adopted in accordance with the discussion in the body of this Order and Appendix A to this Order. These revisions shall become effective on December 31, 2025.
3. Department of Public Service staff shall, within 15 days of the effective date of this Order, file the revised Uniform Business Practices in this proceeding and update the Uniform Business Practices posted on the Public Service Commission’s website to reflect the changes made in this Order. [Emphasis added.]

Excerpts from the Order:
“By this Order, the Commission adopts the DPS Staff Proposal, with modifications, and modifies the UBP to reflect changes to GBL §349-d related to material changes to ESCO contracts and contract renewal notices.”

DISCUSSION
“In this Order, the Commission adopts, with modifications, the DPS Staff Proposal to amend the UBP and the Standard Renewal Notice to enforce provisions of GBL §349-d. The modifications to the GBL direct consumer protections related to price and product transparency and reflect the intention to make sure that ESCO customers (1) have all the necessary information before deciding whether or not to renew an ESCO contract, and (2) are informed of and given an opportunity to consent to or reject material changes an ESCO may make to their agreement, including changes in price. Attached to this Order as Appendix A is a redline of the UBP reflecting the modifications adopted in this Order.” [Emphasis added.]

UBP §1: Proposed Definitions
“DPS Staff proposes that UBP §1 be amended to include two new definitions of “express customer consent” and “material change” to add definitions of key terms used in the UBP and to conform with subdivisions 6 and 7 of GBL §349-d.”

“The Commission adopts both definitions of “material change” and “express customer consent” to conform with the amendments of subdivisions 6 and 7 of GBL §349-d. With respect to the definition of material change, the definition adopted will provide clarity regarding what constitutes such a change that would trigger these additional consumer protections. The Commission declines to adopt the more expansive definition suggested by PULP but acknowledges that many of the changes included as specific examples would be considered a material change under the adopted definition. The Commission recognizes the comments provided by several ESCO parties that a change in price should not be considered a material change when it occurs as part of a variable rate agreement. However, as discussed more fully below, the GBL does not provide any such exception for variable rate agreements.

“Regarding reference to the Commission’s prior exception to the affirmative consent rule for enrollments in a guaranteed savings product, the Commission notes that this exception is no longer available and, as discussed below, modifies the UBP to remove this option. Regarding the definition of express customer consent, the Commission notes that, as NRG points out, express customer consent is not a new concept. However, given that this term is used in the UBP and has a specific meaning, it is reasonable to add a definition to the UBP at this time. Regarding PULP’s concern with verbal authorizations, the Commission will require any authorizations, whether verbal or in writing, to be recorded and maintained so that the customer’s consent can be verified at a later date.

UBP §2.B.1.c: Sample Renewal Notices Added to Retail Application Requirements
“DPS Staff proposes that UBP §2.B.1.c be amended to include sample renewal notices as part of the retail access application requirements. AP&G and Kiwi comment that if this notice has to be provided to DPS Staff with their application going forward, any changes will have to be sent to DPS Staff for review prior to using the notice. AP&G and Kiwi further request that the Commission consider permitting ESCOs to send the notice to customers via email or other forms of communication, not only via mail.”

“The Commission adopts DPS Staff’s proposal and will require ESCOs to include sample renewal notices as part of the retail access application requirements. New ESCOs shall provide these sample notices as part of their initial eligibility application and on an ongoing basis as part of triennial compliance filings thereafter. Existing ESCOs shall provide these samples at the time of their next annual or triennial compliance filing, whichever comes first, and on an ongoing basis as part of triennial compliance filings thereafter. In addition to providing such a sample notice as part of the application or compliance filings, ESCOs must then use that notice in communications with their customers.”

UBP §5.B.5.d: Refine Language and Remove Guaranteed Savings Product Exception
“DPS Staff proposes to include in UBP §5.B.5.d more precise language regarding express consent, and to remove language that specifically excludes guaranteed savings products from requiring express customer consent. As part of these changes, DPS Staff proposes to structurally reorganize UBP §5.B.5. and its subsections. DPS Staff also proposes to add a provision requiring the ESCO to maintain records of express customer consent for a minimum of two years or for the length of the sales/renewal agreement, whichever is longer.”

“The Commission adopts the updates proposed by DPS Staff to UBP §5.B.5.d to include more precise language in order to conform with the amended GBL §349-d(6). These changes include requiring ESCOs to retain records of customer consent in a manner consistent with other record retention requirements found in UBP §5. As pointed out by NRG, the existing UBP language regarding changes in price does not precisely reflect the GBL amendments. As such, Appendix A includes an additional redline to that section to more closely track the language of GBL §349-d(6). The Commission is cognizant of the fact that these changes will prohibit customers, including low-income customers, from being automatically switched to a guaranteed saving product without their consent.”

“Regarding the proposed structural change to UBP §5, the Commission rejects this change and instead includes this new language as part of the existing list found within UBP §5. As proposed, the structural changes would have expanded the applicability of these consumer protections beyond those residential customers and those marketed to via door-to-door marketing, which are the customer groups to which GBL §349-d is applicable. Including these requirements within the existing UBP §5 preserves that applicability.”  [Emphasis added.]

UBP §5.B.5.d: Including Specific Notice Disclosures Regarding Transparency of Pricing
“DPS Staff proposes to further amend UBP §5.B.5.d to include the specific notice disclosures regarding transparency of pricing that GBL §349-d(7) requires as part of customer contract renewal notices. Additionally, DPS Staff proposes modifying the standardized renewal notice required to be used by ESCOs in order to reflect these same disclosures.”

“The Commission adopts the DPS Staff proposed changes to UBP §5.B.5.d to add the data points required by GBL §349-d(7) in ESCO renewal notices. Specifically, notices to renew an agreement for energy supply service shall include: (1) the price charged for energy services; (2) the price the ESCO proposes to charge upon renewal; (3) the price that is charged by the customer’s distribution utility; and (4) information notifying the customer how they may compare past bills with what they would have been charged had they received energy services from the respective distribution utility, including the internet address of any bill calculator offered by such customer’s distribution utility on its website.”

“Regarding comments suggesting that such notice disclosures are unnecessary, the Commission disagrees. Not only are these specific disclosures explicitly required by GBL §349- d(7), the Commission finds such disclosures appropriate to ensure the customer is apprised of how their energy service is changing and to allow the customer to make an informed choice regarding whether to continue with the ESCO. Moreover, as discussed below, these notice requirements from GBL §349-d do not conflict with the CLCPA.”

“Turning to NRG’s argument that the Commission had previously not required express consent or renewal notices for changes in price as part of a variable rate or month-to-month agreement, the Commission highlights that such determination was, in part, based on the previous premise that a change in prices was not considered a material change. This is no longer the case as GBL §349-d(6) explicitly includes a change in price as a material change. This change in law necessitates revisiting and modifying the Commission’s prior determination.”

“Regarding AP&G’s assertion that ESCOs should be permitted to modify the sample renewal notice, the Commission confirms that ESCO are indeed permitted to propose such modifications, so long as the notice includes all required information in a clear and easily understandable manner. Such proposed modified notices, however, must first be submitted and approved by Staff before an ESCO may employ them. Regarding the comments that suggest similar treatment for ESCOs serving customers pursuant to a CCA program as for other ESCOs serving customers via the traditional model, the Commission confirms that GBL §349-d does not include any carve out or exceptions for CCA programs and thus these consumer protections would apply to all ESCOs serving residential customers or customers marketed to via door-to-door sales, including those that do so as part of a CCA program.”

Express Customer Consent Must be Obtained and Recorded in a Verifiable Format
“DPS Staff proposes that, when obtaining express customer consent for a material change, that consent must be obtained and recorded in a verifiable format and that verifiable proof of customer consent be furnished to DPS Staff upon request.”

“The Commission adopts DPS Staff’s proposal regarding how consent is tracked and verified. While many of the commenters assert that consent for a price change is not necessary, the explicit language of GBL §349-d dictates otherwise. Some commenters argue that customers should be notified of pricing changes, but should not have to consent to those changes, while others argue that consent for price changes is not necessary because the customer received the initial price when they signed the agreement. Not only are these arguments unpersuasive from a consumer protection standpoint, but they ignore the explicit requirements of GBL §349-d that (1) ESCOs obtain express customer consent for material changes to energy service agreements and (2) a change in price is considered a material change.”

Utilizing the 12-Month Trailing Average Posted by Utilities
“DPS Staff proposes to allow ESCOs to utilize the 12- month trailing average posted by distribution utilities quarterly to satisfy the requirements regarding disclosure of utility pricing, as set forth in GBL §349-d(7).”

“The Commission adopts DPS Staff’s recommendation to utilize the 12-month trailing average that distribution utilities already post in compliance with the Commission’s Order Adopting Changes to the Retail Access Energy Market and Establishing Further Process, for the purposes of satisfying the price comparison information required by GBL §349-d(7).14 This will provide ESCOs with a readily available price to compare that can be utilized to satisfy these new notice requirements. As noted above, the GBL does not make exceptions for ESCOs serving customers under a CCA program and thus these protections apply to ESCOs that service CCA programs as well.”

Variable Rate/Month-to-Month Product Offerings
“Reflecting the amendments to subdivisions 6 and 7 of GBL §349-d, DPS Staff presents the practical impact these changes would have on variable rate and month-to-month agreements. GBL §349-d explicitly requires express customer consent for any material change to the terms or duration of an energy service contract and explicitly identifies a change in price or product structure as material changes. Thus, DPS Staff asserts that ESCOs are required to obtain a customer’s express consent for any change in price, including a price change pursuant to a variable rate agreement, or any changes in the terms used to determine such price. Additionally, regarding contract renewals, DPS Staff asserts that the amended language of GBL §349-d(7) regarding contract renewals would apply to all month-to-month agreements, which expire and are renewed each month.”

“The Commission agrees with DPS Staff’s interpretation of the requirements of GBL §349-d, which explicitly require express customer consent for any material change to the terms or duration of an energy service contract, and expressly identify either a change in price or product structure as a material change. Several commenters, such as Constellation, NRG, and RESA, argue that renewal notices and express customer consent should not be required for customers served on month-to-month and/or variable rate agreements. These commenters assert that customers are aware at the time of signing that the contract is subject to future price changes and thus the ESCO should not be required to provide notice when those changes occur. These commenters further assert that monthly renewal notices would generate customer confusion, increase customer complaints, and create unnecessary administrative burdens for both customers and ESCOs.”

“While these commenters assert that it is the DPS Staff Proposal that requires these notices for renewals and material changes, these requirements were imposed by the legislature when it adopted the revisions to GBL §349-d and the DPS Staff Proposal simply seeks to incorporate those changes into the Commission’s UBP for consistency. As noted above, the plain language of GBL §349-d explicitly requires express customer consent for any material change to the terms or duration of an energy service contract and expressly identifies a change in price or product structure as material changes. Though the Commission considers month-to-month agreements to expire and renew each month, it has not historically required renewal notices to be sent each month. However, given the explicit statutory language that a change in price is considered a material change, this is no longer the case and ESCOs are now required to receive express customer consent for monthly rate changes. With that said, the Commission makes one modification to DPS Staff’s interpretation of these provisions. While DPS Staff asserts that GBL §349-d(7) would require renewal notices to be sent each month to all customers on month-to-month agreements, the addition of specific notice requirements in GBL §349-d(7) does not automatically require a renewal notice. The Commission will not impose a requirement that renewal notices be sent each month to customers who are on month-to-month agreements, which expire and are renewed each month, so long as there is no material change made to the customer’s agreement. However, a customer notice and express customer consent is required if a material change occurs in any given month, including a change in price as part of a variable rate agreement.”

“AP&G and Kiwi’s argument that the DPS Staff Proposal would enable customers to breach the contract each month until termination underscores the need for this consumer protection. A customer exercising their right to exit the agreement in any given month upon providing notice to the ESCO would not constitute a “breach” of a month-to-month contract. The characterization of this normal customer choice as a breach of contract highlights that some ESCOs view providing customers with product transparency as harmful to the companies’ efforts to retain customers. Our perspective differs from the commenters. Customers should be empowered and encouraged to make informed energy choices and providing customers with up-to-date pricing information will not lead to a significant rise in breaches of month-to-month agreements.”

“Turning to Constellation’s comments concerning the applicability of these consumer protections to commercial customers, the Commission confirms that the protections will not apply to ESCO service to commercial customers. [Emphasis added.]  As discussed above, these consumer protections are reflected in UBP §5.B.5 which, like GBL §349-d, is limited to residential customers and customers solicited via door-to-door sales. With respect to ESCOs serving customers as part of a CCA program, as stated above, the GBL provisions do not include an exception for such ESCOs and these rules would apply to these ESCOs’ service as well. However, such material change and renewal notices will follow the CCA consent process whereby municipal consent serves as a proxy for individual customer consent.” 

“Finally, with respect to arguments made that requiring ESCOs to mail hard copy notices would interfere or be inconsistent with the CLCPA, the Commission finds otherwise. The Commission notes that many ESCOs already utilize significant amounts of paper in marketing to, enrolling, and serving customers, and that the UBP requires various customer notices and communications at certain points throughout their service with the ESCO. Requiring ESCOs to inform customers of material changes to their energy supply will require some ESCOs to increase the number of notices sent to customers, but that increase will be de minimis compared to the broader impact on greenhouse gas emissions caused by ESCO activity generally. These commenters fail to provide any support for their assertions that adopting these provisions of the GBL within the UBP will increase paper mailings in a manner that would be inconsistent with the CLCPA, and instead appear to argue that any increase in paper generated would be inconsistent with the CLCPA. By this logic, any new request for ESCO eligibility should be denied as inconsistent with the CLCPA because the ESCO will likely generate significant amounts of paper in marketing to, enrolling, and serving customers.”

“Moreover, the alleged inconsistency with CLCPA emissions targets is speculative. These notice requirements would only adhere if the ESCO is serving a customer and makes a material change to the customer’s agreement. Not all ESCOs make regular changes to their agreements that would necessitate such a notice and an ESCO that does offer such a product could choose not to do so. Thus, while the GBL requires customer notices – and express consent – for material changes, whether or not a material change occurs is entirely in the control of the ESCO and whether or not such notices will need to be mailed is speculative.”

“Finally, assuming for argument’s sake that requiring customer notices is inconsistent with the CLCPA, which the Commission determines is not the case, the notice requirement would still be justified. Ensuring customers receive notice of material changes to their energy supply contracts, as required by the GBL, necessitates this incremental mailing requirement, and the benefit of ensuring informed customer energy decisions would outweigh any incremental increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the mailing of customer notices. While the Commission understands the request to provide such notices via email, as stated above, not every customer has access to a computer or the internet and allowing these notices to be provided electronically is likely to result in a significant number of customers not receiving the required notices. For this reason, ESCOs shall continue to mail physical notices for all required ESCO notifications to customers.”

Press Release – PSC Actions Protect Utility Customers  (11/13/2025)
Order Adopting Modifications to the Uniform Business Practices  (11/13/2025)
98-M-1343
(In the Matter of Retail Access Business Rules.)