Connecticut’s utility regulator has approved a nearly $68 million rate increase for United Illuminating, granting the electric company that serves the New Haven and Bridgeport areas additional revenue and erasing all financial penalties tied to its failure to clean up a contaminated former power plant.
Connecticut’s utility regulator has approved a nearly $68 million rate increase for United Illuminating, granting the electric company that serves the New Haven and Bridgeport areas additional revenue and erasing all financial penalties tied to its failure to clean up a contaminated former power plant.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority issued a final decision on United Illuminating’s rate case Tuesday, following the utility’s request for reconsideration of its initial decision in October.
The new decision sets UI’s annual revenue requirement at $452.8 million for the rate year running from Nov. 1, 2025 to Oct. 31, 2026 — an increase of $67.9 million over the company’s previously authorized revenues of roughly $384.9 million. PURA also authorized UI to recover up to an additional $413,541 in executive compensation if the company hits certain performance targets.
The decision caps a months-long rate case in which UI, a subsidiary of Orange-based Avangrid, initially sought a $105.4 million rate hike — a 27.4% increase. PURA’s September 2025 draft decision authorized only about $29 million. A final decision in October raised that to roughly $66 million, but still imposed penalties on UI’s allowed return on equity related to the company’s remediation failures at English Station, a former coal plant in New Haven that has been a source of contamination disputes.
UI then petitioned for reconsideration. In Tuesday’s decision, PURA agreed to remove a 10-basis-point ROE reduction tied to the English Station remediation and a separate five-basis-point reduction related to the company’s noncompliance with PURA directives on a centralized distribution energy resource management system and a water heater rental program. The agency set UI’s allowed return on equity at 9.45% — below the 10.5% UI had sought, but above the company’s previously authorized 9.1%.
On expenses, PURA maintained several disallowances from its October ruling, including rejecting UI’s proposed inflation adjustments for certain operations and maintenance costs, 75% of the company’s proposed board of directors expenses, and half of its proposed independent audit expenses.
The decision drew a sharp rebuke from Attorney General William Tong, who called it “dead wrong” and said the outcome reflected broader dysfunction in the state’s utility oversight landscape.
“This decision delivers $68 million more in profits and hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus pay for corporate executives paid out of the pockets of Connecticut families,” Tong said. “The October decision was a massive disappointment for Connecticut families, and today’s final decision is even worse.”
Tong suggested the outcome was connected to the departure of former PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, who left the agency in October amid what he described as “months of drama and relentless legal and political attacks.”
Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman also criticized the ruling, saying it was “disappointing” that UI’s reconsideration petition resulted in additional increases for customers. Coleman highlighted the removal of the ROE penalties as a particular concern.
“ROE penalties are important accountability mechanisms to protect consumers when a company fails to meet its obligations to customers,” Coleman said. “While many of the penalties my office argued for were retained, any increase to bills sends the wrong signal to the families and businesses my office is charged with representing who are already struggling with high costs for essential needs.”
UI spokesperson Angela Baccaro defended the outcome, saying the company "continues to invest in reliability, resilience, and customer service, and to engage constructively with all stakeholders to keep bills as affordable as possible while maintaining a safe, modern grid."
Baccaro also pushed back sharply on Tong's characterization of the decision and his defense of Gillett. She said it was "deeply concerning" that Tong had chosen to publicly back the former PURA chair, citing court filings and public reports that showed Gillett "resigned amid scandal after the agency acknowledged it was in violation of state statute, hid and failed to disclose public documents, and possibly perjured herself while under oath before Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee."
"These issues go far beyond routine administrative disagreement and raise serious questions about fairness, transparency, and integrity," Baccaro said. "The Attorney General's office has yet to provide clarity on many of these issues, leaving unanswered questions that are essential to restoring public confidence in the agency's operations."
The decision was issued by commissioners David Arconti Jr., Janice A. Beecher and Holly H. Cheeseman. PURA Chairman Thomas Wiehl recused himself from the docket.
