🔒AG, consumer counsel, others urge PURA to reject Aquarion sale in filings challenging proposed approval

Attorney General William Tong, the Office of Consumer Counsel and a coalition of Fairfield County municipalities have filed written exceptions urging the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to reverse its proposed approval of the $2.4 billion sale of Aquarion Water Co. to a newly created quasi-public Aquarion Water Authority (AWA). The filings, submitted in response to PURA’s March 6 proposed final decision preliminarily approving the transaction, attack the decision on procedural, legal and financial grounds — with the consumer counsel’s office calling it “an astounding abdication” of the agency’s administrative powers. Tong’s office said the total cost of the sale to ratepayers is $5.9 billion, including principal and interest on the 40-year bond financing. The AG’s filing said the projected long-term savings from the public authority model’s tax-exempt borrowing are “pure folly.” “PURA’s primary obligation is to protect the public interest, not just protect Eversource’s bottom line, and this transaction is not in the public interest,” the attorney general’s office wrote. The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) argued that PURA violated the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act by incorporating the applicants’ offer of compromise into the proposed final decision without reopening the evidentiary record, holding a hearing or allowing parties to conduct discovery and cross-examination on its terms. The offer of compromise was filed after the evidentiary record closed in August 2025 and was previously declared moot by PURA. The OCC argued that PURA resurrected it without notice, depriving the parties of their statutory rights under the act. Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman’s office also directly challenged PURA’s stated rationale that the transaction is a “creature of statute” that “cannot be denied.” The OCC pointed to the General Assembly’s enabling legislation, which was passed in June 2024 during a hastily called special session. The legislation, which created a framework for the sale, states the act is not effective unless PURA approves the transaction — language the OCC argued leaves the agency’s discretion intact. A joint filing from the Connecticut Metropolitan Council of Governments, the Western Connecticut Council of Governments and the towns of Fairfield, New Canaan, Ridgefield and Westport introduced an argument that AWA ratepayers would bear the entire acquisition cost, while customers of its sister quasi-public entity, South Central Regional Water Authority (RWA), pay nothing — even though both customer bases would benefit from scale. The municipalities called the arrangement “manifestly unjust” and argued it violates state statutes requiring that water utility rates cover only operating and capital costs. The municipal intervenors also argued the commitments in the offer of compromise are essentially unenforceable because PURA loses jurisdiction over AWA the moment the deal closes, unlike in the SJW Group’s acquisition of Connecticut Water Co. in 2019, after which PURA retained oversight. The OCC further argued PURA erred by proceeding with a Superior Court’s remand for reconsideration while the municipal parties’ appeal of the Superior Court decision is pending at the Appellate Court, saying the agency should have stayed the proceeding to allow the court process to run its course. In a separate filing, the applicants — AWA, RWA and Eversource Energy — asked PURA to issue a final decision without changes. The applicants argued the acquisition premium, previously estimated at about $100 million as of December 2024, has shrunk to “approximately $0” as of late February because Aquarion has invested nearly $200 million in capital expenditures in the interim. PURA has set a March 25 deadline for its final decision.