Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rate Making Workforce Conduit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rate-case contested items: workforce headcount, planned capital and New England South conduit project
Summary
During oral argument PURA heard disputed issues including a proposed disallowance of revenue for 72 FTEs, treatment of planned capital additions and whether conduit installed at New England South (Bridgeport) is 'used and useful' regardless of immediate energization.
Consumer advocates and UI debated multiple rate-making issues raised in the proposed final decision, including workforce-related revenue disallowances, rate-year capital, and the treatment of completed conduit work related to the New England South project.
OCC described the authority’s job as balancing rate-making principles with practical needs and explained it did not recommend the workforce cuts in briefing but acknowledged the PFD applied rate-making principles to exclude certain added headcount. OCC said the company had added roughly 72 full-time-equivalent positions (a mix of new hires and transfers from the service company) since the prior rate case and that PURA’s draft decision reduced revenue for some of those positions. UI explained that 29 transferred employees had reduced costs in the service company and that the accounting should not create a double disallowance; the company also said transferred employees should not bill time to the service company going forward.
On planned capital, OCC reiterated that assets not yet used-and-useful should not be included in rate base for contemporaneous recovery. UI defended certain scope decisions for the New England South conduit work in Bridgeport, saying it installed conduit through the floodwall during a larger construction scope because retrofitting later would have been substantially more expensive; UI’s position was that the conduit itself is used and useful once installed and subject to depreciation even if conductors are not yet pulled through the conduit.
Commissioners asked for clarification about regulatory-liability mechanics, FTE allocations, and documentation of in-service plant; UI said a regulatory liability requires that the company actually receive the revenue to place on the liability ledger. OCC and DEEP said that, where revenue is authorized and collected, holding it as a regulatory liability while the allocation question is resolved would be an acceptable compromise.
Next steps: PURA will review written exceptions and technical corrections in the record; parties were asked to file motions and clarifying exhibits as needed.
