Connecticut’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday that Eversource Energy has no right to challenge a state regulator’s order tightening emergency response standards, ending a legal fight that began with two people trapped under live electrical wires in a rural Litchfield County field.
“After years of litigation, the Supreme Court confirmed what was always understood — PURA acted appropriately within the scope of its authority,” Attorney General William Tong said Wednesday in response to the high court’s decision.
The ruling upholds a 30-minute response target that state utility regulators imposed on Eversource following a January 2023 accident in Norfolk, where a car struck a utility pole and sent live wires crashing down onto a vehicle.
First responders waited more than an hour for Eversource crews to arrive and cut the power before they could free the two injured occupants, according to court documents.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority investigated and found Eversource’s response “imprudent,” saying dispatchers waited 17 minutes before assigning a response specialist — and then didn’t even send the closest one available, in violation of the company’s internal policy.
PURA ordered Eversource to meet a new 30-minute target for life-threatening emergencies and to overhaul its accident reporting procedures.
Eversource fought the ruling in court, arguing that PURA had denied it a fair hearing by conducting the investigation as an informal “uncontested” proceeding rather than a formal contested case — which would have given the company the right to appeal PURA’s findings to a judge.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice William Bright, rejected that argument. Under Connecticut law, the right to appeal a state agency’s decision to court is limited to “contested cases” — a legal category that applies only when a statute or regulation specifically requires the agency to hold a hearing before acting.
Because no such requirement applied here, the court found the Superior Court was right to throw out Eversource’s appeal.
Eversource had argued that the agency’s own decision to hold a hearing — even a voluntary one — should have triggered appeal rights. The court disagreed, ruling that a hearing PURA chose to hold on its own initiative, without being legally required to do so, cannot create a contested case.
The accident drew sharp criticism from local first responders. The Norfolk fire chief wrote to Eversource afterward saying he found it “completely unacceptable that in 2023 Eversource is incapable of confirming that the correct grid was de-energized.”
Eversource pushed back on PURA’s factual findings throughout the litigation, arguing the agency mischaracterized the timeline and misstated the company’s dispatch policies. But the court’s ruling on jurisdiction means those factual disputes can never be reviewed by a judge.
The company had also warned that the new deadline could backfire, claiming in court filings that it “jeopardizes the safety of the company’s line personnel and the general public” by pressuring workers to rush dangerous jobs. Eversource also said some municipalities were already misclassifying lower-priority calls as emergencies to jump the queue for a faster response.
The court acknowledged that the imprudence finding carries potential future consequences, as PURA could use it against Eversource in the future. But the finding is not legally binding in future proceedings, meaning Eversource would have the opportunity to relitigate the question if and when it comes up in a rate case.
Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman, whose office intervened in the case on behalf of ratepayers, called the ruling a victory for PURA’s oversight authority.
“The decision is a clear affirmation of PURA’s authority to conduct thorough investigations and issue findings consistent with public safety,” Coleman said. “The Court rejected Eversource’s attempt to blur the line between contested and non-contested proceedings, making clear that not every agency review must be treated as a contested case to be enforceable.”
Coleman added that the ruling “removes a series of procedural arguments that have increasingly been used to delay or complicate consumer-focused regulation of the utilities.”
Eversource spokesperson Sarah Paduano said the company believes parts of the ruling actually support its position.
“The Supreme Court’s decision confirms what we’ve said all along: that PURA previously imposed an arbitrary and non-enforceable response time of 30 minutes or less — regardless of distance, weather or road conditions — which puts both the public and our employees at greater risk,” Paduano said.
Paduano noted that Eversource crews are not emergency vehicles and must follow standard traffic laws.
“Our crews must follow the rules of the road like other drivers and they make every effort to respond to all calls as quickly and safely as possible,” she said.
Eversource called for a more transparent regulatory process going forward, saying the case “highlights the importance of an open, fair and transparent regulatory environment that allows all parties the opportunity to appropriately engage in the process.”
The case was argued before the five-justice panel in December.
