Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
PURA oral argument proceeds as utilities, intervenors weigh settlement and recusal motions
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority held oral argument in United Illuminating’s rate case docket 24-1004 while parties discussed possible procedural extensions, motions to recuse staff and commissioners, and a negotiated settlement to avoid appeals.
Vice Chairman David Arcanti reconvened oral argument in Docket 24-1004, the United Illuminating Company (UI) rate case, after a series of recesses while parties conferred on whether additional procedural steps are needed following the chair’s recusal and resignation.
Parties raised competing procedural requests that afternoon. Avangrid and Eversource notified the authority that they have filed a joint motion seeking recusal of PURA’s general counsel, and several intervenors urged that any further procedural accommodation be open to all parties. UI told the panel it was willing to seek an extension of the authority’s statutory deadline only on terms that would “hold harmless” the commission for time lost while parties negotiate a settlement. The authority said it would accept written motions and not rule from the bench.
Why it matters: multiple parties warned commissioners that issuing a final decision based on the draft decision prepared under the now-recused chair could prompt appeals and litigation. Several stakeholders urged a negotiated consensus to avoid prolonged court challenges that could delay rate resolution and related work across utilities and state agencies.
The record is closed for evidentiary purposes, and commissioners reminded speakers that oral argument is not a vehicle for new evidence. Vice Chairman Arcanti and Commissioner Karen said they had read written exceptions and would accept motions in writing for any schedule changes. UI and other parties said they would work on a joint or coordinated motion to extend the timeline; OCC, CIEC and other intervenors insisted any settlement or extension process include all parties from the start.
Several outside legal steps were described in public argument. Parties said they have active matters in Connecticut courts and before the Freedom of Information Commission related to alleged misconduct at PURA. Avangrid and Eversource mentioned a pending declaratory judgment petition and other civil actions seeking discovery and, if necessary, depositions to resolve allegations about prior internal agency processes. The Attorney General’s office said it had no exceptions to the draft decision and denied having conceded bias in related appeals.
What commissioners said they will do next: the authority told parties to file motions in writing; the panel will confer and decide whether to accept a joint procedural extension or proceed to final decision on the existing schedule (the draft decision was noted to be scheduled for issuance on October 28). Commissioners encouraged parties to continue negotiating so that, if possible, they could present a consensus resolution for the panel to approve rather than a contested final decision that could be appealed.
The hearing record shows active dispute over whether a final decision can lawfully be issued without broader agreement; some parties signaled they would preserve appellate rights if the commission proceeded unilaterally. Commissioners closed oral argument after two rounds and asked parties to file any motions and proposed procedural language for the record.
