The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority adopted a final decision on Oct. 28 in Docket No. 241004 that sets United Illuminating Company’s (UI) annual revenue requirement at $450,789,348 for the rate year Nov. 1, 2025, through Oct. 31, 2026.

PURA staff (Attorney Riley) told commissioners that UI initially sought a 27.4% ($105,418,797) increase to authorized revenues and proposed a 10.5% return on equity. After a 350‑day proceeding that included three public comment hearings, multiple rounds of prefiled testimony, field audits, more than 2,000 interrogatories, seven days of in‑person hearings, and settlement discussions, the authority approved a revenue requirement of $450,789,348. The decision allows recovery of an additional $413,541 in executive compensation only if the company meets specified performance metric targets.

The authority’s decision includes an allowed return on equity (ROE) of 9.45% but applies an aggregate 20‑basis‑point reduction to 9.25% subject to conditions and timelines the decision establishes to address performance and management issues. The decision also approves approximately $2,602,000,000 of plant and service and an employee compensation expense to support about 670 full‑time employees; the company serves over 341,000 customers in 17 Connecticut towns and cities, the staff presentation said. PURA cited General Statute § 16-19 and § 16-19e among the statutory provisions guiding its review.

Chairman Tom Wheel announced that, because of prior substantial participation as a lawyer and supervisor for the Office of Consumer Counsel in the UI proceeding, he had recused himself and abstained from the vote. Interim Commissioner Jan Beecher also said she had not had sufficient time to reasonably render a decision on the record and abstained. Vice Chairman David Arconti and Commissioner Michael Karen stated they would support the final decision. After roll call, the authority adopted the decision.

Commissioners who spoke thanked PURA staff for the process and record development; the decision followed a protracted investigatory and adjudicatory process and included opportunities for exceptions and oral argument before issuance of the final decision.