🔒CT Supreme Court to hear Eversource emergency response case

The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 11 in Eversource Energy's challenge of a state regulator's decision to impose new emergency response requirements following a 2023 car accident that trapped two people under live electrical wires. The case stems from a January 2023 accident in Norfolk where a vehicle struck a utility pole, causing electrical wires to fall on the car, trapping two injured passengers inside. It took Eversource crews 54 minutes to arrive and make the scene safe, drawing criticism from local fire officials. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority investigated and found Eversource's response "imprudent," imposing a new 30-minute response deadline for life-threatening emergencies and additional accident reporting requirements. Eversource appealed in Superior Court, arguing that PURA violated its right to due process by conducting the proceeding as an "uncontested" case rather than a formal hearing, and by failing to notify the utility it would be judged under a "prudence standard." The company claimed in court filings that PURA's 30-minute deadline "jeopardizes the safety of the company's line personnel and the general public" by creating pressure to rush emergency responses. Also, Eversource said municipalities were already gaming the system by misclassifying lower-priority calls as emergencies to get a faster response. Superior Court Judge Matthew J. Budzik dismissed the appeal in October 2024, ruling that Eversource had no right to judicial review because Connecticut law didn't require PURA to conduct the investigation as a contested case. "If a hearing is not statutorily mandated, even if one is gratuitously held, a contested case is not created," Budzik wrote, noting that PURA acted within its discretionary authority. The judge found that the statutes Eversource cited either didn't apply to the situation, or merely gave PURA permission to hold hearings — without requiring them. Eversource appealed the trial court’s decision, which the state’s high court has agreed to review. In the appeal, Eversource argues the lower court’s ruling would allow regulatory agencies like PURA to circumvent due process protections by simply labeling proceedings as "uncontested." The utility company said PURA engages in a "pattern and practice" of avoiding contested proceedings to prevent judicial review, then uses its findings as precedents in future cases. PURA has defended its investigation as properly conducted within its broad authority to ensure utilities protect public safety. The agency said Eversource's response time was unacceptable for a life-threatening emergency and that the new requirements were necessary to prevent similar delays. The two accident victims were ultimately transported to trauma centers by helicopter, but fire officials said the delay potentially compromised their medical care during the critical "golden hour" for trauma patients. Eversource declined to comment.