Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

New York Utilities Seek Authority To Charge ESCOs For Implementing New Shadow Billing Comparison Law; Impose Up To $11 Per Customer Charge On ESCOs

June 15, 2026

Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

The New York utilities have petitioned the New York PSC for authority to charge ESCOs for implementing shadow billing information, to be included in utility bills, and other aspects of General Business Law sections 349-d(9) and (10)

As previously reported, the new law requires that: (1) the "billing party" provide residential and small commercial customers with billing statements which include a side-by-side comparison of prices charged by ESCOs versus the "price" the customer would have paid had the customer been on default service, and (2) ESCOs provide an annual statement to the customer comparing the ESCO’s prices with the utility’s over the prior 12-month period.

Although the law refers to a comparison of "price", the utilities are generally proposing to implement the side by side comparison as a comparison of total monthly cost, rather than a price-per-unit figure

The utilities seek to recover from ESCOs "all" costs to comply with GBL §§ 349-d(9) and (10)

The utilities propose an initial upfront charge, based on an ESCO's number of mass market (residential and small commercial) customers, for implementation costs. The utilities also seek to recover ongoing maintenance costs, billed monthly or annually, depending on utility, with the utilities also proposing that charges be re-allocated to existing ESCOs if an ESCO fails to pay its assessment. The utilities also seek to recover from ESCOs any legal costs incurred to enforce the assessments

Specifically, for the upfront charge, the following per-customer charges would be applied to each ESCO, with the per-customer charge multiplied by each ESCO's number of mass market customers, as of June 17, 2026, in such service area:

Per-customer charges to ESCOs for initial upfront charge:

ConEd and O&R (same charge for both):: $1.76

Central Hudson: $1.09

National Fuel Gas Distribution: $0.86 per UCB customer initially; $0.0616 per customer ongoing

National Grid (same charge for NiMo and both Keyspan LDCs): $3.62

NYSEG/RGE (same charge for both): $10.83

Several utilities stressed that the per-customer charges are estimates and are subject to change

Ongoing maintenance costs assigned to ESCOs may be deducted from payments under POR (if applicable), or invoiced to ESCOs for dual billed customers

The utilities said, "ESCOs -- not utilities or customers -- unequivocally bear all utility costs related to compliance with these new legal requirements and the Commission is authorized to prescribe the method of recovery."

Utilities also proposed, via EDI or an alternative mechanism depending on utility, the manner under which utilities would provide to ESCOs the utilities' information for a side by side comparison (for a dual billed customer under which the ESCO must provide a comparison on the ESCO bill) and info for the 12-month annual comparison statements required to be issued by ESCOs to customers pursuant to GBL § 349-D(10)

For Con Edison and Orange and Rockland, the utilities propose a new charge code under EDI that will will allow the utility to communicate with ESCOs to fulfill ESCOs' 12-month reporting obligations. This information will be added as new charge codes in the existing “810 URR-Invoice Transaction – Utility Rate Ready” implementation guide.

National Fuel, NYSEG, RGE, Niagara Mohawk, KEDLI, and KEDNY will provide the required comparison data to ESCOs through existing or enhanced secure utility platforms, including secure web portals or other secure data-delivery platforms

The utilities also request that ESCOs be required to use the data provided by the utilities for any of the requried comparisons issued by the ESCO

Utilities filing the petition include:Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (“Central Hudson”), Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (“Con Edison”), National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation (“National Fuel”), New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (“NYSEG”), Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid (“Niagara Mohawk”), KeySpan Gas East Corporation d/b/a National Grid (“KEDLI”), and The Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY (“KEDNY”) (Niagara Mohawk, KEDLI, and KEDNY, collectively, “National Grid”), Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (“O&R”), and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (“RG&E”)

Cases 98-M-1343, 15-M-0127, et al.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

 

Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search