Originally Posted By JeepinMaxx:
I don't think I saw anything on the news about the rally today - I wonder if they had anyone turn out..

Originally Posted By Number_Six:
In a rare moment of cost analysis, Lamant has opted out of the offshore windmill initiative (ctmirror.org).
"Gov. Ned Lamont told The Connecticut Mirror this week that his reason for caution with a new offshore wind commitment is its high cost that would compound existing high electric rates"

As the colder months approach, you may think more about your electric bill. On Friday, Eversource officials broke down its winter rates as it filed its standard, biannual supply rate adjustment with PURA.

While it’s a decrease compared to last year, customers can expect to see a bump in their bills.

The electric supply rate changes twice a year. It’s typically higher in the winter than in the summer. This year, compared to last year, Eversource said the winter rate is down by about 24% for standard service customers — the lowest it’s been in a few years.

But compared to the summer rate, it’s up by about 7%, totaling about $15 monthly.

News 8 spoke with customers who said they’re frustrated and have been feeling the pinch. They’ve seen their bills go up and up, impacting how they spend their money on items like food and gas.

“It restricts us in a lot of ways of doing things we’d like to do: vacations, buying things, food for our house, gas for our cars,” customer John Pelow said.

Customers also said they’re trying to be mindful about how much energy they use but haven’t noticed a difference in their monthly bills.

“They say turn things off, unplug stuff you don’t use,” customer Marguerite Cunningham said. “A lot of times, I do that, and it’s still expensive!”

Eversource officials said they’re responsible for the delivery portions of the bill, and those rates are not changing.

“It’s really important to understand that Eversource is an energy delivery company,” said Steve Sullivan, president of Connecticut electric operations for Eversoruce. “We are only directly involved in and responsible for the delivery portion of the bill.”

Sullivan said the supply portion of the bill is usually the largest and most volatile. The public benefits portion includes costs mandated by the state, such as financial assistance and energy efficiency programs.

“We are required to consolidate the entire bill, so the customer gets one bill, behind the scenes: 50% on average goes to the supply company, 10% covers the public benefits cost, and 40% is actually going to Eversource,” Sullivan said.

If approved by PURA, the new electric supply rate would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025. The approval process can take a few weeks.

Customers are encouraged to stop, sign up and save by comparing options offered by third-party suppliers at EnergizeCT.com

“I think they need to be a little more regulated and controlled, so they can’t keep raising these prices on us,” Pelow said.

If you are in need of home heating assistance, call 211, or apply to the Connecticut Energy Assistance Program.

Monthly natural gas bills will go down for some customers in Connecticut starting Dec. 1.

The state’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) held a special meeting Monday, denying a proposed rate increase for Connecticut Natural Gas (CNG) and Southern Connecticut Gas (SCG). The commissioners’ two-to-one vote will require the companies to return $120 million to customers.

“Due to various adjustments incorporated, I do plan on supporting today’s final decision,” John W. Betkoski, PURA’s vice chairman, said.

“There is never a good time for a rate increase,” PURA Commissioner Michael Caron said. “I’m very mindful of the pressures and difficulties that Connecticut families and businesses have had to deal with over the past four years.”

Monday’s vote impacts 184,000 CNG customers in the central part of the state. The average CNG customer will see a nearly $7 decrease in their monthly bills.

More than 200,000 SCG customers will see a $5.25 decrease in monthly bills.

“This is finally a bit of good news for Connecticut families desperately in need of relief from unaffordable energy costs,” Attorney General William Tong said.

Avangrid, the parent company of United Illuminating, owns both companies.

Customers were livid when electricity bills hit mailboxes across the state in July and August. Many registered substantial increases in the cost of lighting and cooling their homes. Anger over dramatically higher bills quickly ignited a blame game between policymakers, utility companies, and regulators.

But what actually drove up costs this summer? News 8 sat down with the governor, a top Republican lawmaker, executives at Eversource, the state attorney general, and the chairman of the state’s utility regulator to examine how a mixture of public policy and a particularly hot summer ignited a political firestorm.

Every person News 8 spoke with agreed on one point: high temperatures led to a spike in electricity usage.

“The biggest increase in costs was the hottest weather we’ve had and air conditioning on,” Gov. Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) said.

A senior Eversource executive concurred.

“Most of what customers felt in July and August was an increase in usage. It happens every summer,” Steve Sullivan, Eversource’s president of Connecticut electric operations, said.

State Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich), the top Republican senator on the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, echoed Eversource and the governor on the issue of usage.

“It was very hot in the summer, so usage went up,” Fazio said.

However, the three men also agreed that another factor drove up rates over the summer: the public benefits charge.

The public benefits charge is one of four categories visible on a ratepayer’s bill. The other three categories are:

Supply, which represents the cost of generating electricity.
Transmission, which represents the costs of the expansive regional system of high-voltage wires that bring electricity from power plants to local communities.
Local delivery, which represents the cost of bringing electricity from substations to customers’ homes and businesses.
Eversource, the state’s largest utility, is in the transmission and local delivery business. It does not generate power and does not determine the public benefits portion of the bill.

More than 60 different charges fund dozens of government-mandated programs in the public benefits portion of the bill.

This summer, several of those programs attracted significant attention. One was responsible for the lion’s share of the increase in the public benefits portion of the bill: the costs associated with the state’s 2017 deal to purchase electricity from Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in Waterford.

State legislators conceived the deal to ensure the long-term viability of the Millstone plant, which supports nearly 4,000 jobs, and hedge against the sometimes volatile natural gas market.

Simply put, the Millstone deal set a fixed rate for purchasing nuclear power. At times, ratepayers benefit from the difference between that fixed rate and the price of natural gas. Other times, ratepayers are on the opposite end of the nuclear hedge.

“When gas is very cheap, we pay a price for that,” Lamont explained. “When gas is expensive, when Putin invades a country, we get a credit.”

“When natural gas prices are lower than the Millstone rate, we lose and it’s not a good deal in those moments,” state Attorney General William Tong said.

Tong voted against the Millstone deal when he was in the state legislature. As state attorney general, he frequently locks horns with utilities.

This summer, ratepayers felt the effects of cheap natural gas prices falling below the fixed Millstone rate. A report from the Connecticut Office of the Consumer Counsel, an independent state agency that advocates for utility customers, stated that the year-to-year increase in the cost of the Millstone contract was just under $300 million.

According to Marrissa Gillett, the chairman of PURA, the combination of hot summer weather and the increases in the public benefits portion of the bill formed a “perfect storm.”

Another significant cost embedded inside the public benefits portion of the bill was the state’s pandemic-era shutoff moratorium. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, state leaders instructed utilities not to turn off power for those experiencing financial hardship. Over four years, the cost of those unpaid bills built up and is now being shouldered by all ratepayers.

Lamont defended the decision to halt shut-offs while conceding to critics that the moratorium lasted too long.

“During the worst of COVID, when people were not working – having a hard time paying their bills – the idea that you were gonna shut off their power, I think, was not the right decision,” Lamont said. “So, we did extend the moratorium, and now we’re paying that off. Do I think the moratorium went on a little bit too long? I do. But it’ll be over, that moratorium payment, within five or six months.”

The higher-than-expected bills that landed in ratepayers’ mailboxes this summer triggered a public debate, led by Republicans, over the future of the public benefits charge.

Fazio, the GOP’s de facto point man on energy issues, railed against the dozens of other programs funded by the public benefits charge. Those programs include a slew of renewable energy subsidies and efforts to boost energy efficiency and weatherize the power grid.

Fazio argues that green energy programs, including funding for electric vehicle charging stations, should be removed from ratepayer bills and instead funded through the state’s normal budgeting process. Asking ratepayers to pay for the programs on their monthly bills, Fazio and other Republicans argue, is a backdoor tax to fund Democratic environmental priorities.

“If you look at Connecticut’s electricity rates in particular, we have the third highest in the country after Hawaii, which is an island, and after California, which has lost its mind,” Fazio said. “My thesis is that Connecticut state policies are inflating the cost of electricity here to the point that we’re higher than our neighbors, higher than all but two other states in the country.”

Lamont and many of his Democratic allies don’t fully buy Fazio’s argument that removing some or all programs from the public benefits charge would meaningfully impact bills.

Asked about Fazio’s proposal to remove the cost of electric vehicle charging stations from the public benefits charge, Lamont said, “Let’s talk about that in the general session [of the legislature], but it’s not really enough to make a big difference.”

Lamont has maintained that many of the proposals put forth by Fazio and the Republicans following the shock of this summer’s bills are largely cosmetic. The real challenge, Lamont argues, is that Connecticut’s demand for electricity is outpacing its supply of affordable energy.

“We have a long-term problem,” Lamont said. “Our long-term problem is that demand is picking up, and supply is not so much.”

Lamont said a large part of Connecticut’s problem is its unique position at or near the end of the energy supply chain.

“Well, it’s easier in the other states!” Lamont exclaimed. “If you’re in Oklahoma, you’ve got a hundred acres, you can put up a bunch of windmills. If you’re in Texas, you put a straw in the ground and up comes natural gas. We’re sort of at the end of the supply chain.”

Connecticut currently gets a large portion of its energy from natural gas. Expanding the supply of natural gas, however, is a daunting challenge.

“At this point in time, it’s actually a very tough issue,” Sullivan said. “It would be extremely difficult to get a new gas supply line into our area. If we did that, that would really lower our natural gas prices.”

Political opposition to new natural gas infrastructure effectively halted plans for a new gas-fired plant in Killingly. Lamont remains largely focused on collaborating with regional governments to increase renewable energy capacity online.

The governor highlighted Connecicut’s collaboration with Rhode Island on an offshore wind project scheduled to come on line next year.

“That will be helpful,” Lamont said.

Lamont also said he was engaged in talks with the governor of Maine to bring in more solar and hydroelectric power.

Republicans like Fazio are quick to point out that renewable sources are typically more expensive than natural gas. Solar and wind power are also intermittent sources of electricity.

“We need to look at expanding the existing supply chain and pipeline to bring more affordable, reliable sources of energy inputs like natural gas,” Fazio said.

One area where Fazio and Lamont seem to agree is on the promise of nuclear power. Both men still support the 2017 Millstone deal and are optimistic that Connecticut can lead in further investments in nuclear power.

“I think most serious people about energy think it was a good decision,” Fazio said.

“I think the Millstone deal was the right thing for Connecticut,” Lamont said. “It gives us always-on, carbon-free power. If we did not have that, we’d have much more spiking of electricity prices because we’d have a bigger shortage.”

Lamont added that he believes capacity at Millstone could be expanded further, and that lingering public concerns about safety are largely based on fears no longer relevant given advances in nuclear power.

“I think they’re doing it much more safely than they did it 50 years ago,” Lamont said. “We’ve had Millstone for fifty years in this state with no mishaps – really managed well. The locals like it, and I think there’s room for capacity there.”

“We need strong regulatory infrastructure in order to protect the public safety, and that’s been there a long time,” Fazio said. “I mean, the fatality rate society-wide among different sources of energy, nuclear is by far one of the safest over 50 or 60 years.”

Of course, these proposals to expand Connecticut’s energy supply take time. In the near term, the fight to lower rates is largely the purview of the various entities tasked with regulating and scrutinizing the utilities. Unlike the debates over the future state’s energy supply, the debate over utility regulations yields few points of agreement between the principal participants.

Numerous entities regulate utility giants like Eversource at the state and federal levels. PURA, the state’s principal utility regulator, has jurisdiction over the costs associated with local distribution.

“PURA’s role in that is to take in all of the evidence and then essentially make factual and legal determinations and ultimately decide what the rates are that the utility can charge pursuant to the law,” Gillett, the PURA chairman, said.

Whenever utilities request a rate hike, PURA hears arguments from various interested parties, including the Office of the Consumer Counsel and the state attorney general.

“We’re in there basically under the hood, and we’re looking at every cost they ask for,” Tong said. “Does that seem right to us based on our experience? Is it well documented? Is it justified?”

Upset over your Eversource bill? You’re not alone
While PURA portrays itself as a quasi-judicial entity carefully adjudicating rate cases, Eversource says the regulator has clearly picked a side.

“Every sign that we get from our regulator is ‘drive investment down, lower your costs of that delivery piece of the bill,'” Sullivan said.

In Eversource’s telling, rate cases that result in greatly reduced rate hikes often impede the utility’s ability to make investments in the future reliability of the grid. The choice to not make significant investments now, the company argues, could eventually come home to roost for ratepayers.

“You have to constantly be making consistent investments in order to keep that system as strong and as reliable as it can be,” Sullivan said. “If you cap that investment or have an intention to drive that investment down, then it’s very difficult to stay on that trajectory of improving our reliability.”

The perceived hostility of Connecticut’s regulatory environment has led Eversource to include a “regulatory risk premium” charge in a recent rate hike request for subsidiary company Yankee Gas.

“Given the financial uncertainty created by the regulatory atmosphere in Connecticut and subsequent credit downgrades that ratings agencies like Moody’s have given to utilities in Connecticut, a regulatory risk premium is necessary to help attract investors so that we can access the low-cost capital needed to maintain safe, reliable service which keeps costs stable for customers,” an Eversource spokesperson wrote.

The state attorney general offered a sharp counterpoint.

“Let me translate that for you: They don’t like that we’re holding them accountable,” Tong said. “They don’t like that the regulatory system is working, and now they’re asking us to pay a premium because we’re holding their feet to the fire? Give me a break.”

Originally Posted By zegermanznew:
What a crock of shit. This was a relatively tame year in terms of heat.

Glad I have zero utility bills.

Eversource and natural gas customers could see an increase in their bills down the line because of a change in the companies’ credit ratings.

Like your credit score, banks look at credit ratings to determine how likely a company will pay them back. With a lower credit rating, these utility companies say it will cost more to secure money for large projects, and customers will end up with a larger bill.

S & P Global downgraded credit ratings for Eversource along with Connecticut Natural Gas and Southern Connecticut Gas, subsidiaries of Avangrid. The ratings changed a notch or two, but Eversource officials said it makes a big difference.

“That means anytime we access debt in capital markets, it will cost more, which will then result in higher rates for our customers,” Douglas Horton, Eversource’s vice president of distribution rates and regulatory requirements, said.

Eversource and the natural gas companies are on the same page regarding who’s to blame.

In a statement, the head of the natural gas companies said the credit ratings were caused by the increasingly unpredictable and unstable regulatory environment created by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA).”

House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora has been outspoken about PURA, saying the agency is driven by politics and has repeatedly decided not to approve rate hikes.

“While we might be cutting the utility company, and it might feel good for PURA to be championing all these cuts, in the long run, our rate powers are the ones that are going to suffer,” Candelora said.

PURA oversees utilities in the state, and the governor appoints the chairman.

State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, a Democrat representing the 136th district, said utility companies are pointing fingers instead of focusing on the work that could advance energy in Connecticut and turn a profit.

“Rather than focusing on where we have common ground and where we can make good money, they’ve turned this into some sort of war that has turned into this impasse that does not serve the interests of the people of Connecticut,” Steinberg said.

It’s hard to say how much a customer’s bill could increase, but Eversource said cost increase from any credit downgrade may result in high rates that will stick around for decades.

News 8 has reached out to PURA for a comment, but we have not heard back.

There is some finger pointing going on this week at the state capitol after another credit rating drop for some of the states utilities.

Moody’s las lowered credit ratings for Connecticut Natural Gas and Southern Connecticut Gas, blaming what they call a “challenged regulatory environment.”

Republicans are blaming Gov. Ned Lamont and are arguing for more say on who sits on the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the agency that sets electric rates.

“At a time when people are continuing to suffer with their electric bills, we continue to see these countless down grades, that are only going to increase borrowing for our utilities companies and increase costs to rate payers,” Rep. Vin Candelora, the House Republican Leader, said.

A lower credit rating usually mean sit costs more to borrow money and those higher expenses are usually passed onto customers.

United Illuminating (UI) is increasing its public benefits charge for customers in 2025, according to a press release.

UI calculates that beginning in May 2025, customers will see a 0.10% increase, equating to approximately 26 cents per month.

It’s important for our customers to know that, as a distribution-only company, we do not control or profit from the Public Benefits Charge, which funds sustainability and hardship programs that have been passed by state policymakers,” Frank Reynolds, president and CEO of UI, said. “We are required by state law to implement the programs contained in the Public Benefits Charge. If customers have questions about these charges, we encourage them to contact their elected officials.”

Speak out about the reappointment of PURA Chair Marissa Gillett on February 20, 2025

The Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee will hold a public hearing on Thursday, February 20th, at 11:00 AM in Room 1A of the Legislative Office Building. To voice your opinion about the reappointment of PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, please click on the buttons below to register to speak at the hearing, submit written testimony, or view the hearing on YouTube. Read the agenda here.

Senate Republicans continue to fight for CT residents and offer solutions to provide relief from skyrocketing electric bills. View our six-point plan to learn more.

REGISTER TO SPEAK

SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY

WATCH LIVE ON YOUTUBE

Connecticut’s ongoing disagreement over utility regulation has taken an odd turn, with Eversource proposing to return $275 million to its electric customers as a credit on next year’s bills and regulators saying not so fast.

Should Eversource prevail, the monthly bill for a typical residential customer would drop by about $15 as high usage summer months approach. That would be in stark contrast to last summer, when record heat, high energy consumption and market volatility caused rates locally to spike as much as 400 percent.

In its annual review of Eversource rates, the Public Utility Regulatory Authority has proposed a smaller credit of $45 million, a figure that would result in far less savings on bills.

The different calculations of what customers are owed through credits turns on how much electric utilities are required to pay, under contracts negotiated by the state, for the power they distribute to millions of customers. The costliest contracts with the biggest effect on rates are long term agreements the state has negotiated with Millstone and Seabrook (New Hampshire) nuclear power stations.

The nuclear energy contracts were negotiated as a hedge against swings in the price of other kinds of energy, in particular that generated by natural gas.

The nuclear power deals drove last summer’s spike in electricity cost because the state contracts had required the utilities to buy high priced nuclear energy at a time when low, pandemic power use drove down the cost of natural gas. As energy markets equalized after the pandemic, natural gas increased in cost, making nuclear energy a relative bargain and resulting in the current talk of a customer credit.

A 2017 Millstone deal is driving the high public benefits charge on CT electric bills. Here’s why

The different views on the credit owed to Eversource customers is based on different methods of forecasting utility rates, which has been a point of contention in a long, continuing and  and increasingly political feud between the state regulators and the utility industry.

What makes the latest disagreement, over credits, stand out is who is accusing the other of holding out on ratepayers. For months PURA’s political supporters in the legislature and in the administration of Gov. Ned Lamont have accused the utilities of sacrificing rate payer interests to those of stockholders.

A spokeswoman for PURA said the quasi-judicial authority cannot discuss pending matters, such as a credit for Eversource customers.

“This is a pending proceeding before PURA, and, as such, PURA is prohibited from commenting on or speculating about the interim decision, which is scheduled for a vote at the April 23rd regular meeting,” spokeswoman Taren O’Connor said. “The Authority will review the entire record, including the written comments due today, April 4th. Any reporting should clarify that draft decisions have no legal effect and do not represent the views of any particular commissioner.”

Eversource spokeswoman Jamie Ratliff said the utility has asked PURA to be allowed “ to return an additional $275 million to customers, as a result of state-mandated power purchase agreements including those with the Millstone and Seabrook nuclear power plants, instead of the current $45 million that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has tentatively approved to begin in May.”

“This comes at a time when customers can benefit the most, as energy bills typically go up significantly in the summer months due to increased electric usage,” Ratliff said. “The wholesale energy market is incredibly volatile, but this year, appears to be moving in a direction that’ll give money back to customers. This is customer money that should rightfully be returned to them as soon as possible.”

A filing with PURA Friday indicates that there has been ongoing discussion about the amount of an Eversource rebate and the disagreement lies in part in the argument by utilities that they should be able to make decisions on financial forecasts as well as past spending.

Eversource initially proposed a $209 million credit but revised the number up to $275 in a filing Friday afternoon. The filing said PURA dropped the figure to $45 million based on a “known and measurable adjustment.”

“This is not sufficient for customers given current market information,” Eversource said in the filing. “PURA should provide customers with the benefit of the PPA (power purchase agreement) actual and forecasted market information that are now known to exist so that there is rate relief heading into the hottest peak season months and customers will have cost savings on a real time basis, rather than holding back for PURA’s later recognition.”

Questions about a customer credit are taking place as the General Assembly prepares to vote on Lamont’s nomination of PURA Chairman Marissa Gillett to a second term. Her confirmation appeared to be in jeopardy earlier this year, until Lamont and the legislature’s Democratic leadership struck a deal that guaranteed her reappointment to an expanded and restructured authority.

That deal has fallen apart and there were signs of opposition this week from House Democrats and Republicans. House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said he sees political bias in the question of customer credits based on nuclear energy costs.

“I think she doesn’t want to show that the nuclear contract could actually provide savings,” Candelora said. “Because the only narrative that the Democrats and the conservation groups have is to point to why nuclear is bad and why it has cost us a lot of money on our bills.”

In Hartford on Monday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal is expected to demand action to help reduce energy costs for Connecticut consumers.

In recent years, we’ve talked a lot about energy costs in our state and how many people are frustrated with the rising costs.

Blumenthal is demanding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) protect consumers over companies.

He’ll be speaking at the capital at 11:30 a.m. Monday morning, joined by members of the office of consumer counsel.

He’s asking FERC to provide oversight of costly local transmission projects that he says drive up energy prices for consumers.

In a letter to the commission, Blumenthal called for this increased oversight, as well as for the addition of an independent review process.

He hopes that will ensure proposed upgrades or maintenance projects are truly necessary and that the costs are “reasonable and prudent.”

Blumenthal said Connecticut consumers pay for a portion of the costs of all transmission projects throughout the region and the number of these projects have “skyrocketed” largely because of the return on investment for utility companies.

The senator’s ultimate goal here: to make sure all repairs are necessary and not simply being done to benefit utility companies.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:
LOL at  Sen. Richard Blumenthal. ......

Senator Richard Blumenthal played a significant role in blocking the construction of proposed natural gas terminals in Long Island Sound, specifically opposing the Broadwater Energy LLC LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminal.
As Attorney General of Connecticut, Blumenthal actively challenged both the Broadwater Energy LNG terminal and the Islander East natural gas pipeline project, citing potential environmental damage to Long Island Sound. He argued that these projects would harm the Sound's ecosystem, disrupt the fishing industry, and pose a security risk. Blumenthal's efforts, alongside those of other officials and environmental groups, were instrumental in raising awareness about the potential negative impacts of these projects on the Sound.
The proposed Broadwater Energy LNG terminal was ultimately abandoned, according to Newsday, while the Islander East pipeline project was also blocked following a series of legal challenges and state permit denials.

Originally Posted By Leon82:
The Pura head is gone

https://ctmirror.org/2025/09/19/marissa-gillett-pura-chair-resigns/

Questions of candor

Gillett’s resignation came just one day after Candelora, the GOP leader, wrote to the Democratic speaker of the State House asking that impeachment proceedings be opened to investigate whether Gillett was truthful during her confirmation hearing earlier this year.

Candelora pressed Gillett on claims that she withheld staff support for her fellow commissioners who serve with her on PURA’s multi-member board.

“I asked the question of, you know, are you withholding staff, and she said, no, that didn’t happen,” Candelora said.

But new reporting this week from the Hartford Courant reporter Ed Mahony called that answer into question. With emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request, Mahony reported that PURA’s chief of staff said she would “appreciate” if requests for staff support from other commissioners be sent to her. The agency’s chief of staff, Theresa Govert, did not reply to a phone message from News 8.

“I may have been lied to,” Candelora said. “The institution can’t tolerate that.”

State Rep. Matt Ritter, the House speaker who was the recipient of Candelora’s request, said he found Gillett’s response during her sworn testimony to be “at best misleading.”

Asked if he thought Gillett was honest with the legislature, Lamont said, “Look, there’s a lot of back and forth about texts and emails and the such. I don’t want to get into that. I can guarantee you one thing: Eversource didn’t want her out of there because of emails. They wanted her out of there because she was holding them accountable.”

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority issued a final decision Tuesday approving an increased revenue requirement for The United Illuminating Company for the rate year starting Nov. 1.

This will result in an estimated monthly bill impact of $9.99 for distribution rates for the average residential customer using 750 kilowatt hours of electricity, according to PURA.

UI provides electric service to over 347,000 customers in 17 towns across southwestern Connecticut.

A total revenue requirement of $450 million was approved by PURA, which is 8% less than UI’s proposal.

The approval also allows a return on equity of 9.45%, however PURA reduced the allowed return on equity to 9.25% to address management and performance issues.

UI initially proposed a 27.4% or $105 million increase on their existing authorized revenues for a total revenue of $490 million. UI additionally proposed of a 10.5% return on equity, a 1.4% increase from the currently allowed 9.10% return on equity.

Claire Coleman, of the Office of Consumer Counsel, released the following statement regarding PURA’s final decision.

“While it is disappointing that some of the cost reductions and accountability measures that my team advocated for were not retained in the final decision, we acknowledge the result reflects the consensus reached through deliberations of the voting commissioners during particularly challenging times. Given that the final decision gives UI more revenue than the company’s own stated bottom line for providing safe and adequate service, I hope that UI will accept the decision rendered by its regulator and cease its practice of filing a battery of appeals. This should allow the Company to turn its focus toward improvements and efficiencies that can still be achieved in the delivery of electricity to customers. I am grateful to my team for their extensive efforts and for remaining focused on OCC’s mission to advocate for the interests of UI customers throughout this year-long proceeding.”

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said that PURA’s decision dealt a blow to the affordability crisis in the state.

“This is disappointing news for Connecticut families,” Tong said in a statement. “After months of relentless legal attacks, United Illuminating succeeded in running off its chief regulator. For those who spent these last months fixated on personalities and politics, this decision is a stark reminder of what this fight was always about. It was about millions upon millions of dollars that Connecticut families will now pay to increase United Illuminating’s bottom line. We cannot lose sight of that, and we must redouble our efforts to address the crisis of affordability in our state.”

PURA conducted three public comment hearings, several days of audits, and in-person hearings as a part of it’s investigative process over the past 350 days.

UI’s last rate case took place in 2023.

The rate year runs from Nov. 1 to Oct. 31, 2026.

News 8 has reached out to UI for comment.

Eversource’s winter supply rate for Connecticut residents are expected to increase this winter, pending approval by PURA, according to a release.

The price of electricity is expected to increase to 12.64 cents per kWh on Jan. 1, which is approximately a 13% change compared to last year, according to Eversource.

Standard Service supply rates change twice a year, according to Eversource, and is typically higher in the winter due to regional supply constraints and market volatility. The rate is determined through a process overseen by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA).

Customers are encouraged by Eversource to take control of their energy supply costs by shopping for rates on EnergizeCT.com.

It’s that time of year again — Eversource is asking for a rate increase after assessing its rates for the winter months.

Hyacinth Yennie lives in Hartford and already has her lights off and hear turned low. She said she is prepared for the winter rate increase that happens every year for Eversource customers.

“I don’t sleep with my TV on,” Yennie said. “I don’t sleep with my TV plugged in.”

The rate Eversource is asking for is a 13% increase from last year, but a decrease from two winters ago. The Massachusetts-based utility company said Connecticut customers can expect to see their bill increase by $10 per month on average and that the rate increase is due to the laws of supply and demand.

“As demand for natural gas in the region increases, we typically see our wholesale energy prices come up as well,” Eversource Vice President of Distribution Brendan O’Brien said. “It’s important to highlight that, here in Connecticut, we are prohibited from generating power on behalf of our customers.”

Eversource gas technicians are currently out checking appliances and making sure gas flows evenly across the system.

“In the winter time, everybody uses gases to hear their homes,” Brian Cirella from Eversource said. “I just want to make sure everybody has enough gas to hear their homes and the pressure isn’t going too low.”

Eversource’s rates are expected to increase on Jan. 1, 2026.

Eversource and United Illuminating customers will likely see their monthly bill increase at the start of next year.

Eversource rates will increase from around $0.097 per kilowatt hour to $0.126 per kilowatt hour, around $20 more per month total if using the same amount of energy.

For United Illuminating, rates will be increase from around $0.117 cents to $0.137 cents per kilowatt hour, around $14 more per month if using the same amount of energy.

Both companies are charging slightly more than they were last winter, but Eversource is charging less than two winters ago.

The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) voted Wednesday to reject the sale of Aquarion Water Company from Eversource Energy to the quasi-public entity Aquarion Water Authority.

This comes after Connecticut’s Attorney General William Tong, bipartisan mayors, and state legislators pushed back on the proposed sale.

State officials warned the sale would cause massive rate hikes of up to 65%.

The $2.4 billion deal would have converted Aquarion into a nonprofit called Aquarion Water Authority (AWA) and would have shared resources with the South Central Regional Water Authority.

“This deal was a costly loser for Connecticut families and PURA was right to reject it,” Tong said in a written statement.

“Eversource desperately wanted to offload Aquarion, and they concocted this maneuver to extract as much cash as possible by guaranteeing the new entity free reign to jack up rates. Eversource is free to find a new buyer, but should understand that any new attempt to end public regulatory oversight over water bills for hundreds of thousands of Connecticut families is going to be a non-starter here,” he continued.

Aquarion is owned by Eversource, which serves over 750,000 people in Connecticut. It is the largest water company in the state.

PURA Chairman Tom Wiehl abstained from the vote; he said he was a legal and regulatory director for the Office of Consumer Counsel, and four others voted against the application.

Eversource spokesperson Sarah Paduano provided the following statement:

“The special act approved by legislators in 2024 indicated that the state was interested in an expanded non-profit model. However, once tested, that same special act proved difficult to overcome for PURA to move away from an investor-owned model.”

News 8 has reached out to RWA and other state officials for comment.

Connecticut residents with Eversource Energy and United Illuminating could save roughly $30 a month on energy bills starting soon, thanks to a decision made by the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on Wednesday.

PURA officials announced they conditionally approved decreased rates for both energy companies via their Rate Adjustment Mechanisms (RAM) on Wednesday.

The decreased rates will be effective May 1 through April 30, 2027.

What officials call “interim decisions” mean Eversource residential customers will see rates decrease by a total of 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour or about $30 on an average monthly bill. UI residential customers will see rates decrease by a total of 4.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, or an average monthly decrease of about $34.

PURA officials said the decreases were partially tied to nuclear energy contracts with Millstone and Seabrook, as well as the hardship protection costs for both companies, which include the costs of uncollectible debt and arrearage forgiveness programs.

They may also adjust the approved rates effective Sept. 1, based on review of actual revenues and approved expenses from the prior calendar year.

Connecticut residents with Eversource or United Illuminating could see lower rates come May 1st.

Eversource customers could save roughly $30 a month, and UI customers could save closer to $34.

What’s going to change on your bill is the public benefits portion, which is the number you can expect to go down. Residents can expect to see those changes on their May utility bill through April 30, 2027.

PURA officials said the decreases were partially tied to nuclear energy contracts with Millstone and Seabrook, as well as the hardship protection costs for both companies, which include the costs of uncollectible debt and arrearage forgiveness programs.

They may also adjust the approved rates effective Sept. 1, based on review of actual revenues and approved expenses from the prior calendar year.

Originally Posted By WoodBurner-CT:
How much is the Public Benefits Charge decreasing?

Eversource filed a letter of intent on Wednesday seeking to file for a double-digit rate hike by next summer.

If the distribution rate review is approved as proposed, the average increase would be about 11% across all customer classes and about 13% for residential customers starting July 1, 2027.

Paduano said the letter of intent details an annual operating revenue deficiency of about $503 million, excluding storm costs between 2018 and 2023.

According to Eversource, the economy, inflation, supply chain challenges and other factors have significantly increased equipment costs and materials across the utility industry.

Paduano said an increased investment is needed to maintain the level of “affordable reliability and resiliency” that customers expect.

The letter of intent is the first step in requesting that regulators review and adjust distribution rates to reflect the modern cost of maintaining electric systems and services.

Paduano’s full statement and the full letter of intent are below.

Eversource Letter of Intent Distribution Rate Review Download

Paduano’s full statement reads as follows:

“Today we submitted a letter of intent (LOI) to file a distribution rate review for our electric operations – the first in nearly a decade. Over the last 10 years, customers have experienced increased reliability as a direct result of our strategic investments in the electric system, and increased investment is needed to maintain the level of affordable reliability and resiliency that customers have come to expect.

The LOI is standard procedure and submitted prior to filing the actual rate review application. This is the first step in the process to request regulators review and adjust current distribution rates to better reflect the cost of maintaining the electric system and safely delivering power to customers across Connecticut. Our LOI details an operating revenue deficiency of approximately $503 million annually, which excludes 2018-2023 storm costs. If approved as proposed, the average increase would be approximately 11% across all customer classes and approximately 13% for residential customers starting July 1, 2027.

Our storm costs are currently being evaluated by PURA in a separate docket, and we are hopeful regulators will authorize securitization for those costs, which is a specialized financing method that will allow those costs to be recovered over a much longer timeframe of 20 years and at a lower interest rate compared to the traditional six year recovery. If securitization is approved, this will substantially lower bill impacts for customers and allow us to keep the full amount of storm costs from our rate review application.“

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong released the following statement in response to the proposed rate increase:

“Connecticut families are getting crushed by unaffordable energy costs while Eversource executives crow to Wall Street over surging profits and rake in multimillion dollar bonuses. But they choose now to demand hundreds of millions of dollars more. Why? Because after years of litigation and lobbying, they finally ran their chief regulator out of town. They want a rate hike now not because they need one, but because they think they can get away with it. We’re going to scrutinize every profit, every bonus, every perk and every padded expense in their application and we’re going to be fighting for Connecticut families and small businesses at every step of this process.”

Paduano said there are no CEO, CFO, or company president salaries or variable pay included in the proposed rate request.

Consumer Counsel Claire E. Coleman released the following statement on the rate filing:

“A letter of intent is the first step in the rate case process, where a company notifies regulators that it intends to seek a rate increase. Eversource will now have up to 60 days to file a full application, formally triggering what is expected to be one of the most consequential utility review proceedings in years. Once filed, OCC will aggressively scrutinize the company’s request, conduct discovery, cross examine Eversource witnesses, and present recommendations to PURA to ensure customers are not asked to pay for anything beyond the most necessary and cost-effective investments. My office will prioritize keeping  costs as low as possible for consumers already struggling with affordability challenges, while promoting critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, consumer protections, and overall system reliability. Because Eversource has not undergone a rate review since 2018, this case will provide the first real opportunity in years to thoroughly examine the company’s operations, spending decisions, and priorities under a microscope. This process will also provide multiple opportunities for members of the public, community organizations, and elected officials to participate through public hearings and written comments submitted into the record. OCC strongly encourages consumers to stay engaged throughout the proceeding and to visit our website or contact our office directly for information on how to participate.”

The governor’s plan was presented by his campaign as a “sweeping” proposal to reform utility regulations. It measured 329 words spread out over eight bullet points. Among the key provisions of the plan is a rule that would require the state’s two utility giants — Eversource and United Illuminating — to reapply every 15 years to retain their status as monopolies in the market.

Other portions of the plan provide new subpoena powers for the state’s consumer watchdog, expand responsibilities for the utility regulator, and impose penalties if the utilities fail to adopt certain energy-efficient technologies.

“These initiatives will hold the utilities accountable, bring down electric prices, and make a big difference in terms of affordability in our state,” Lamont said.

Pressed to explain why Wednesday, just about two months before the Democratic Party’s primary, was the chosen time to roll out new energy policies, Lamont framed his announcement in the context of previous policy accomplishments he’s secured during his 7-year tenure.

“I started off by saying what we did by ‘Take Back the Grid’ and get some of the junk out of the ratebase. Followed up by what we did in terms of a hedge on high natural gas prices and how much that saves you,” Lamont said, referencing the 2020 legislation that set performance-based regulations on the utilities and the 2019 deal to purchase a stable supply of energy from Millstone Nuclear Power Station.

“So, we’re not new to this battle,” Lamont said. “But now, we’re stepping up.”

Lamont’s two opponents, one Democrat and one Republican, each hammered the plan as insufficient and cynically timed.

“I think the governor is eight years late and billions of dollars short,” state Sen. Ryan Fazio, the Republican nominee, said.

“The idea that he’ll suddenly become a champion for ratepayers two months before a primary is a jarring departure from everything his record shows,” state Rep. Josh Elliott, a progressive Democrat poised to challenge Lamont in the August primary, said.

Fazio and Elliott each have ambitious plans of their own to lower electricity costs. Elliott believes that municipally-owned utilities of the type that Wallingford and Norwich operate would deliver lower costs. Fazio largely built his public profile as the GOP’s chief voice on energy issues. He has long advocated for broad eliminations of programs funded by the public benefits charge on ratepayers’ bills. Lamont claims that such a move merely represents a shifting of costs from ratepayers to the state’s biannual budget. In turn, Fazio says the reductions are feasible and would result in outright eliminations of many public benefits programs, not a shift of costs from one column to another.

For years, Connecticut families have been hit with some of the highest electric bills in the nation while politicians in Hartford assured taxpayers that everything was under control.

Now, the truth has finally come out.

In a stunning legal settlement, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has admitted that former Chairman Marissa Gillett improperly designated herself as presiding officer in nearly every utility proceeding since 2020, unilaterally decided substantive motions without proper commissioner review, and issued rulings that were presented as decisions of the full Authority.

Even more troubling, PURA acknowledged that records of commissioner votes were not maintained as required.

This lawsuit, brought by Connecticut's major utility companies, confirms what many had been warning for years: a lack of transparency, accountability, and proper oversight at one of the state's most powerful regulatory agencies.

While Governor Ned Lamont repeatedly defended and reappointed Gillett, Connecticut ratepayers were left footing the bill. Now, rate cases may need to be reconsidered, and the consequences of these improper actions could impact Connecticut families and businesses for years to come.

A 2025 lawsuit against the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority alleging ongoing violations of legal requirements has been dismissed in accordance with an agreement between the state attorney general’s office and the plaintiffs, Eversource and United Illuminating Co.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs, which included Eversource subsidiaries Aquarion Water and Yankee Gas, claimed that PURA Chair Marissa Gillett designated herself to be presiding officer in nearly all proceedings since 2020 and was making all substantive rulings and was issuing them over the signature of PURA’s executive secretary “without any indication or record of any vote of the members of the agency,” according to the suit.

On Nov. 19, a Superior Court memorandum of decision held that such conduct was “contrary to law.” The commission also has since been reformed with a new chair and filled out to its full capacity of five voting members, which the legislature approved last month.

With the newly commissioned panel having adopted administrative directives addressing the concerns listed in the suit, the two sides filed a joint motion for dismissal May 27, which Judge Elizabeth Stewart granted June 12.

Representatives for Gov. Ned Lamont and PURA did not respond to messages seeking comment this week. Spokespersons from Attorney General William Tong’s office and the plaintiffs deferred to the language in the court documents.

Electric bills in Connecticut are taking center stage in the race for governor, and Eversource is asking leaders to approve an 11% rate increase for customers across staring next year.

In a press conference on Thursday, state Sen. Ryan Fazio (R) made it clear where he stands.

“We’re here for something that feels like Groundhog Day,” Fazio said. “Another proposed electric rate hike in the state of Connecticut, and we’re here to urge PURA [Public Utilities Regulatory Authority] to do everything they can to stop this impeding rate hike. “

At the press conference, News 8 spoke with business owner Dawn Maiorano, who has felt the pain over the past few years.

“In the last five years we have completely done our HVAC. We’ve got to LED, and I’m telling you right now the rate has gone up,” Maiorano said.

She owns Maiorano Funeral Home in Waterbury and says the hikes are constantly weighing on her.

“The utilities almost make it impossible to run a small business in town,” Maiorano said.

With a potential double digit hike looming, Maiorano says it could be crippling: “It cripples you for a minute because you have to kind of pivot. And what do we do? Do services suffer? Do you go up on other things?”

Meanwhile, Gov. Ned Lamont (D) said he’s trying to take action to help.

“We still have a long way to go, We got rid of public benefit charge for the next year making a difference of about 40 bucks a month to the average homeowner,” Lamont said.

Gubernatorial candidate Josh Elliot said that’s not enough.

“When Eversource posts profit of $1.69 billion, when their CEO makes over $15 million a year, when they operate with impunity because they have a franchise with the state to have a monopoly, and they can charge whatever they want, and PURA doesn’t have a mandate from the legislature, and the governor’s office to limit how much they’re making — it’s a perfect storm,” Elliot said.

This rate hike could bring in roughly $500 million more from Connecticut residents.

Eversource spokesperson Tricia Modifica said the following in a statement to News 8:

“We recognize this is an election year and we’re an easy target for politicians, however, our customers deserve better. Constant attempts to politicize energy policy and trade on charged rhetoric around electric rates do not serve the interests of customers, nor does it do anything to solve the pressing energy issues facing our state and region which is energy supply constraints, and the unregulated supply market, that continue to drive half of the customer electric bill, and which we don’t control. The distribution rate, which we’ve not filed to adjust in almost 10 years, will be the focus of our upcoming rate review application. The Local Delivery portion of the bill, which includes this rate, is typically about 30% of the bill.”

Eversource said they have experienced “significantly” inflammatory pressures in the last two decades.

“Wire and cable costs have soared by 411%, transformers have increased by 265%, and utility poles have jumped by 123%. We have rigorously managed and successfully held our operations and maintenance costs within our control at approximately half the rate of inflation, but we’ve reached a point where current rates can no longer support the investments needed to maintain and improve such a massive, capital-intensive system.”

At the press conference, Fazio said state leaders are calling in opposition to the rate hike.

“Not only are we calling on PURA to do whatever they can to stop this rate hike, but we’re also calling on the state government and the governor himself to do what they can to provide immediate relief,” Fazio said. “There’s no excuse after eight years on the job for your state, having the second highest electric bills in the entire country.”

In return, Lamont said: “Governors don’t reject rate increases, let’s start with the facts”.

Eversource is expected to formally file its rate case later this month. PURA will either approve, reject or reduce the request. If approved, the new rates would take effect July 2027.

Attorney General William Tong announced Friday that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s draft decision earlier this week further decreased rates for two gas companies in Connecticut.

Connecticut Natural Gas (CNG) and Southern Connecticut Gas (SCG), both owned by Avangrid, had collectively sought over $60 million in rate hikes in 2023, the attorney general said in a press release Friday.

A 2023 earnings report showed CNG over-collected $8 million from Connecticut families and businesses, according to the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. So in 2024, Tong submitted a petition to PURA for a new rate hearing, seeking decreases.

After reviewing the companies’ cases in 2024, PURA authorized rate decreases for the companies — dropping CNG’s revenue by $24 million and SCG’s by $11 million. Tong said this decision lowered bills by about $7-8 per month and $3.50-4 per month, respectively.

In response, both companies returned to PURA to fight for higher rates; CNG had sought a $19.7 million increase and SCG had sought a $43 million increase.

PURA’s draft decision on Friday decreased CNG’s rates by an additional $1.8 million, and SCG’s by an additional $595,000.

“CNG over-collected millions of dollars from Connecticut families, then went to PURA to ask for millions more. We combed through every cent of their applications and called out page after page of unjustified profits and unnecessary expenses. PURA was right from the start to decrease these rates, and they were right again to reject the companies’ unwarranted and unsubstantiated demands. Connecticut families pay way too much for their energy, and these decreases are finally one step in the right direction,” the attorney general said in the press release.