Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Pfas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Water companies, consumer advocates differ on PFAS rate‑smoothing; Connecticut Water estimates $200M need
Summary
Connecticut Water estimated roughly $200 million in PFAS‑treatment costs over five years and urged a statutory surcharge to spread recovery; the Office of Consumer Counsel and community advocates said they support the concept but pressed for tighter consumer protections and clearer eligibility and review rules.
Connecticut’s pending EPA PFAS drinking‑water rules and the cost of complying dominated public testimony: utilities urged a surcharge mechanism to smooth inevitable rate increases; consumer advocates warned language must protect customers and limit long‑term rate risk.
Connecticut Water president Craig Patla told the Energy and Technology Committee the company expects to need “approximately $200,000,000 in PFAS treatment alone over the next five years.” He said the scale of new treatment work means “there's just no choice” but to invest for public health, and the company supports legislation — HB 6777 — that would allow an interim water quality and treatment adjustment to recover costs more incrementally rather than in a single, large general rate case.
Consumer safeguards and procedure: Claire Coleman, Connecticut’s consumer counsel, said the Office of Consumer Counsel supports the concept of cost recovery for extraordinary investments but recommended narrower, clearer language. She urged a defined project eligibility list, limits on the recovery period and protections against an automatic administrative approval absent PURA review. The OCC also flagged the importance of ensuring the mechanism does not shift undue risk onto consumers.
Community advocates: Operation Fuel supported smoothing mechanisms, arguing “price shocks” destabilize household budgets. The nonprofit said it has worked with Connecticut Water on direct bill assistance and on a water rate assistance program targeted to customers at or below state median income; officials noted the company’s customer support programs and said smoothing would help avoid disruptive, single‑step rate increases.
Industry association view: Connecticut Water Works Association told the committee the sector faces multiple large regulatory challenges — lead service‑line replacements, PFAS compliance, climate resilience and dam modifications — and that available federal funding will not cover total need. The association described the bill as designed to provide predictable revenues to fund necessary investments while conditioning recovery on PURA review.
Why it matters: PFAS are regulated at the federal level with a 2029 compliance deadline and many utilities will need new treatment systems for a contaminant regulated at parts‑per‑trillion detection levels. Witnesses said the cost to protect public health is large and state policy needs to both preserve safety and limit sharp rate shocks for ratepayers.
Next steps: Committee members asked the parties to work on technical language, including recommended time windows, precise definitions of qualifying investments, and review timelines. Several witnesses said they would provide follow‑up materials and redraft language to address consumer counsel concerns.
