🔒Eversource’s $1.28B storm cost pursuit heads toward July decision

Connecticut regulators are on track for a final ruling this summer on Eversource Energy’s request to collect more than $1.28 billion from ratepayers to cover the cost of restoring power after catastrophic storms spanning six years, in a bitterly contested utility case. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority is expected to issue a proposed final decision June 22, with a final commission vote tentatively scheduled for July 29. Written exceptions are due on July 6, oral arguments are scheduled for July 13, and reply briefs are due on May 8. The storm costs — accumulated across 43 major weather events between 2018 and 2023, including from Tropical Storm Isaias — have been sitting unresolved for years. Eversource first sought a prudency review of those costs in late 2023, but the effort became mired in procedural battles. PURA initially declined to treat the matter as a full contested case, and Eversource spent much of 2024 responding to nearly 1,200 discovery requests while interest charges continued to mount. A 2025 state law authorizing securitization of utility storm costs gave the proceeding its current structure and urgency. Eversource says the prolonged delay is a threat to ratepayers as much as to the company. In its December application, the utility warned that carrying costs were accruing at roughly $8 million per month, and that the cumulative interest burden for customers could exceed $500 million by the time securitization bonds are issued. “Every month that a final decision in this proceeding is delayed, customers are harmed because carrying costs continue to accrue on unresolved storm costs,” the company wrote. On April 29 — the deadline set by PURA for initial briefs to be filed — state consumer advocates and the attorney general pushed back hard, arguing that Eversource’s request is inflated, its documentation unreliable and its interest claims legally unjustifiable. The Office of Consumer Counsel, which conducted a multiyear investigation into Eversource’s storm cost filings, urged PURA to approve no more than $689.5 million — roughly half of what Eversource is seeking — and said the company’s request for more than $300 million in carrying charges should be denied entirely. Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman said her office uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in unjustified costs. Attorney General William Tong focused his brief on the carrying charges, calling the request a “rushed cash grab” by a company that spent years delaying the review it now says should have moved faster. Tong noted Eversource filed 74 motions for time extensions during the proceeding — totaling more than 1,000 days of delay — while simultaneously arguing it was owed interest because of the slow pace of the review. “Eversource chose to avoid PURA scrutiny for years and years on these storm costs,” Tong said. “They didn’t want to answer tough questions. Now, they’re suddenly demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in interest payments from ratepayers because they think they have the votes at PURA.” Meantime, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection sided with the Office of Consumer Counsel and the attorney general on the carrying charges, arguing that PURA’s longstanding policy — which allows interest to accrue only after a prudency determination, not from the date costs were first incurred — should hold here as well. Eversource has countered that the prudency standard requires regulators to judge its decisions based on what was known at the time, not in hindsight, and that the storm costs were already independently audited by both Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Spokesperson Sarah Paduano said Eversource has met storm response standards set by policymakers in recent years, ensuring sufficient crews and improved communications with customers, regulators, legislators and municipal officials. She noted there is broad agreement among the parties that the costs must ultimately flow through to customer rates. "There is an overall acknowledgement from all of the parties in our storm docket that these costs must be included in customer rates," Paduano said, "and we will continue engaging in the regulatory process — relying on the detailed record and extensive testimony we've submitted in this case as we await a final decision." The company has argued that ratepayers stand to benefit significantly from securitization, which would spread cost recovery over a longer period at lower interest rates than conventional utility financing, meaningfully reducing monthly bill impacts.