Eversource is asking state regulators for permission to file roughly 300,000 pages of its upcoming rate case confidentially, keeping most of the records that support its electric rate increase out of public view. The utility says if the documents were filed publicly, they would need to be redacted at a cost of about $800,000 — […]
Already a Subscriber? Log in
Get Instant Access to This Article
Subscribe to Hartford Business Journal and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
- Critical Hartford and Connecticut business news updated daily.
- Immediate access to all subscriber-only content on our website.
- Bi-weekly print or digital editions of our award-winning publication.
- Special bonus issues like the Hartford Book of Lists.
- Exclusive ticket prize draws for our in-person events.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Eversource is asking state regulators for permission to file roughly 300,000 pages of its upcoming rate case confidentially, keeping most of the records that support its electric rate increase out of public view.
The utility says if the documents were filed publicly, they would need to be redacted at a cost of about $800,000 — a figure it calls unreasonable.
Despite the sealed-filing request, Eversource said it would make “non-confidential information of genuine interest” available to the public.
The Office of Consumer Counsel, which represents ratepayers before PURA, opposes the move.
In a filing, the office argues that every document a utility submits in a docket is a public record under the state Freedom of Information Act — and that none of the law’s exemptions hinge on how much a filing costs or how hard it is to redact.
Utilities spend months, sometimes years, planning a rate case, and redacting voluminous filings is simply “a cost of appearing in Authority proceedings,” the office wrote.
The office also flagged a practical problem. If a member of the public requested the sealed records, PURA, not Eversource, would have to decide whether any exemption applied and do the redacting itself, shifting onto a state agency the very burden the company is trying to avoid.
Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman said the dispute cuts to the core of how a rate case is supposed to work. The utility bears the burden of proving its rates are just and reasonable, she said, which requires a transparent record.
“When a utility asks customers to pay more, the public should be able to see and understand the basis for that request, except where there is a legitimate legal basis for narrowly tailored confidential treatment,” Coleman said.
Instead of filing redacted public copies, Eversource proposes posting a public master index — essentially a line-by-line list showing what each invoice and capital project cost and where the supporting document sits in the record. The documents themselves would stay sealed.
The company would prepare a redacted, publicly available copy of an individual file only if a party specifically asked about it during discovery or at a hearing, meaning the public could see a given document only by knowing in advance to request it.
The clash comes to a head Tuesday, when PURA holds a procedural conference on the case in New Britain. The agenda lists the confidentiality dispute among the matters to be discussed, and the session will be streamed on PURA’s YouTube channel starting at 1 p.m.
The dispute precedes what is expected to be a monthslong rate case before PURA, in which Eversource is seeking to raise electric delivery rates for the first time since 2017.
The company’s request for $503 million in additional annual revenue for maintenance, tree trimming and upgrades to aging infrastructure would add roughly 11% to the average bill beginning in July 2027.
The rate request has also drawn opposition from the legislature. In a June 11 letter, 68 state lawmakers from both parties urged PURA to reject or scale back the increase and to demand full production of the financial data and capital project records behind it, the same documentation Eversource now wants to file under seal.
Eversource says it is not trying to hide anything.
“We are not asking PURA to withhold public records,” said Sarah Paduano, a company spokesperson, arguing that state law allows confidential treatment for competitively sensitive pricing, negotiated business terms and critical energy infrastructure information, and that PURA is within its rights to find the bulk records exempt on those grounds.
The company also points to past PURA rulings that let it file large volumes of records confidentially. In a recent storm-cost case, regulators allowed Eversource to keep roughly 152,000 pages of vendor invoices sealed after the company estimated redacting them would cost up to $400,000.
The current request is nearly double that volume, but Eversource insists the precedent still applies.
Eversource plans to file its full application July 14, with new rates proposed to take effect July 1, 2027.
