Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PURA rescinds 2‑basis‑point ROE cut and denies $69,000 in non‑industry dues for United Illuminating
Summary
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority adopted a supplemental decision on July 9, 2025, rescinding a 2 basis‑point reduction to United Illuminating’s authorized return on equity, disallowing $69,000 in non‑industry dues from base rates, and setting a revised allowed revenue requirement of $385,030,000 after a Superior Court remand.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on July 9, 2025, adopted a supplemental decision in docket 220808 that rescinded a 2 basis‑point reduction to United Illuminating Company’s authorized return on equity and denied recovery of $69,000 in non‑industry dues, producing a revised allowed revenue requirement of $385,030,000.
The action responds to a March 13, 2025, memorandum of decision by the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Britain, which affirmed most of PURA’s August 25, 2023, final decision in UI’s rate application but remanded two discrete issues: (1) the 2 basis‑point reduction associated with the company’s allocated cost of service study (ACOS) and (2) PURA’s treatment of certain membership dues. Authority staff attorney Russ Bowman presented the supplemental decision to the three‑member panel and recommended adoption.
Bowman summarized the court’s findings and the authority’s reasoning. He said the court “found the reductions to be supported by substantial evidence in the record and within PURA’s statutory authority with the single exception of PURA’s 2 basis point reduction in UI’s ROE associated with UI’s allocated cost of service study.” Bowman told the panel that the August 2023 decision had insufficiently separated two issues: whether the company’s ACOS was deficient and whether the company’s chosen rate design — which the company acknowledged was not based on its ACOS — was just and reasonable. “Whether a particular rate design is just and reasonable depends on the available evidence and is subject to debate, disagreement, and myriad policy choices,” he said.
On the ACOS issue, Bowman said the record supports that UI “possesses all of the relevant system and load data necessary to conduct such a study” and that the company’s ACOS was not shown to be inadequate for ratemaking. Because the final decision conflated ACOS adequacy with the debate over rate design, the authority rescinded the 2 basis‑point ROE reduction in accordance with the Superior Court’s holding.
On the dues question, Bowman quoted the authority’s earlier language and the court’s response: the August 2023 decision stated that disallowing the dues was “an outcome of the authority’s statutory obligation to not allow charges to be imposed on customers without a clear demonstration by the company of the tangible benefits to ratepayers of such charges,” and the court rejected wording that implied PURA was compelled to disallow expenses solely because a company failed to demonstrate benefits. Applying the statutory considerations in General Statutes section 16‑19e to the record on remand, PURA concluded the company did not sufficiently establish the reasonableness or prudency of $69,000 in non‑industry dues and denied recovery of that amount in base distribution rates.
The panel adopted the supplemental decision by motion and roll call. The transcript records affirmative votes by Commissioner Karen, Vice Chairman David Arconti and Chair Marissa Gillette; the action was recorded as adopted. Authority staff identified the revised total allowed revenue requirement as $385,030,000 in the supplemental decision.
The remainder of the meeting proceeded to a consent calendar, which the panel adopted as moved and seconded, and then adjourned. No further action on docket 220808 was recorded at the session.
