UI Testifies Before Energy and Technology Committee, Opposing Raised Bill No. 1193 and 1194
The two bills would undermine the balance and objectivity needed in the regulatory process, which is essential for meeting Connecticut’s energy goals
HARTFORD, Conn. — February 4, 2025 — United Illuminating (UI), a subsidiary of Avangrid, Inc. (NYSE: AGR), today testified before the Energy and Technology Committee in opposition to Raised Bill No. 1193, An Act Concerning the Composition of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and Raised Bill No. 1194, An Act Regulating the Regulation of Public Utilities.
Remarks as submitted to the Committee:
United Illuminating Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Avangrid, Inc. opposes Raised Bill No. 1193 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE COMPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY and Raised Bill No. 1194 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.
At a moment in which energy rates are of principle concern among Connecticut ratepayers, and in which the Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA) is undertaking a potentially monumental overhaul to energy regulation in the state, the effect of these two bills to concentrate more power and influence into fewer voices and perspectives at the PURA is counterproductive.
Raised Bill No. 1193 makes two substantial changes, both of which appear to change state law to provide cover to actions that are currently in violation of it. First, it would reduce the number of commissioners appointed to the Authority from five to three. Second, it would reduce the number of PURA commissioners that may be assigned to a panel from three to just one – and allow that one select commissioner to make a binding final decision, rather than the majority vote of the authority. The decisions that come before PURA are too important to the state, its residents and its economy to entrust to one person, which is why this legislature originally designed and required PURA to function as a multi-member adjudicatory body and why it should remain as such.
Since its passage in 2019, the language in C.G.S. §16-2 states that the PURA “shall” consist of five commissioners. Despite the clear obligation of the law, the required five commissioners have never been appointed by the Governor. Bringing more people to the table could move dockets through more quickly, with more perspectives that recognize the balance between enabling investment and holding distribution rates at affordable levels. For UI alone, more than $5 billion dollars have been reviewed in the past five years across dozens of PURA dockets, and with PURA moving towards an entirely new framework in which to regulate essential public service companies through Performance-Based Ratemaking, the task will grow only more daunting for only three commissioners.
Raised Bill 1193 also would change state statute such that “any matter” may be assigned to one commissioner, not the panel of three that state law currently establishes. That single commissioner is then empowered to decide – unilaterally – whether a public hearing should be held on the matter. If so, that one commissioner may conduct the hearing (again, unilaterally), and per the proposed language, that one commissioner can then issue a decision, unilaterally, without a vote – as long as the single commissioner’s decision is “unanimous” (lines 36-45). In other words, if the one commissioner agrees with herself or himself, the decision would be final. The bill in effect will remove the essential guardrails of other voices and perspectives involved in Connecticut’s regulatory process. This concentration of power in the hands of one person, regardless of who that person is or PURA’s current leadership, only adds to the uncertainty and inconsistency that will follow. It is also important to note that similar
language was inserted into Senate Bill 7 two years ago only to be removed in the budget implementer – a clear intention of the legislature to reject such language.
Raised Bill 1194 would subtly modify the state statute such that “one commissioner,” or “the authority,” has the ability to delegate powers to a hearing officer, issue interrogatories, and undertake other powers (lines 6-18). It is this very practice – the improper and unlawful usurpation of PURA’s authority by a single individual – that we and Eversource have challenged in a lawsuit filed in state court last week. We did not take that extraordinary legal step lightly. Our filing comes after more than six months of motions to and correspondence with PURA in the CNG/SCG rate cases, followed by meetings with the governor’s staff, legal filings with PURA, and in the CNG/SCG appeal filed in December. We filed the lawsuit last week only after PURA repeatedly doubled down on a pattern of unlawful conduct that harms not just UI’s due process rights but the rights of the public and this body to have PURA function with the diverse perspectives and checks and balances of a multi-member decision-making body. This proposed legislation would abandon those important public interests to cover over the past misconduct of a single individual. Indeed, it is clear evidence that PURA, contrary to its public statements about our claims being “a nothing-burger,” needs a change in law to align its chair’s practices with state statute. It is worrying, to say the least, that this language would appear to intervene in this legal process, elevating one individual’s interest over the public’s, to protect her from scrutiny in state court.
Regulatory Environment. PURA’s recent decisions have led to financial detriment for utilities and eroded confidence among investors and rating agencies evaluating the predictability of the state’s regulatory environment. These bills will continue to undercut the utilities’ distribution revenues far below appropriate compensation for the essential services we provide – ensuring we can only earn less than half
of what PURA set as our authorized return.1 As a result, the lofty objectives that the legislature has set out for utilities to establish – to build a reliable, innovative, modern, sustainable, and renewable energy system with enough capacity to support everything from data centers and large manufacturers to millions of residents across the state – are slipping further from reach. Because of PURA’s misguided approach, even the most basic objectives of providing safe, reliable, and resilient energy service will become more expensive for customers in ways that are deeper-seated, longer-lasting, and more difficult to recover from than the base distribution revenue cuts set by PURA. Meanwhile, customers’ bills, dominated by supply rates and topped off by the growing costs of public policy programs, both of which are entirely out of the control of utility companies, have only continued their relentless upward climb.
While some Connecticut policymakers have lately taken to pointing to previous PURA leaderships as facilitating an environment that is “too easy” on utilities, this is far from reality. PURA has never been a rubber-stamp for Connecticut utilities. UI submits that is the worldview with which former PURA leadership examined all utility proceedings, and that meant utilities did not escape accountability: in 2017-18 alone, UI’s sister gas companies received penalties totaling nearly $2 million. But the regulatory environment was predictable and stable, not led by one person’s unilateral decisions but by a team of commissioners and staff working together to achieve customers’ most important objectives: safety, reliability, resiliency, affordability, and sustainability of the state’s energy system. That is the energy system to which state residents and businesses need to return – and these bills under consideration today bring Connecticut in precisely the opposite direction.
We remain committed to helping the committee address the state’s energy issues and fulfilling the policy goals and objectives established by the legislature. That requires the regulatory environment to be balanced and objective, which neither of these bills address. Therefore, we urge the committee to reject Raised Bills 1193 and 1194.
Media Contact:
Sarah Wall Fliotsos
swall@uinet.com
(757) 407-4255