Hazardville Water seeks $2.4 million boost; residents cite affordability and water-quality concerns

The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on Nov. 8 heard public comment on Hazardville Water Company's rate application in PURA docket 250712 after the company said it needs a one-year revenue requirement increase of $2,400,000 to cover rising costs and sustain service.

Tom Wheel, interim chairman of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, opened the hearing and told participants that PURA is an adjudicatory body and cannot discuss the merits of the pending application during the public comment hearing. He said the commission will consider the full evidentiary record before issuing a final decision in May 2026.

A Hazardville Water Company representative said the company serves about 7,500 service connections across "Summers, Enfield, and East Windsor," operates roughly 121 miles of mains and 12 well sites capable of producing about 4,200,000 gallons a day, and last filed a general rate case 16 years ago. The representative told PURA the company has invested about $31 million in utility plant (up from $16.8 million in 2009), that operations and maintenance expenses rose from about $1.8 million to $2.8 million, and that property tax expenses have risen about 90% since 2009. The company said it has spent roughly $6.6 million on WICRA projects and about $8 million on additional infrastructure such as pump and motor replacements and generator installations to improve resiliency.

Members of the public who spoke at the hearing overwhelmingly urged more scrutiny of the size and timing of the increase and raised affordability and quality issues. "We already pay a fortune in taxes," said James Siroka, who identified himself as an Enfield resident, adding that many households on fixed incomes cannot absorb large utility increases. Bill Lukens of Southwood Acres in Enfield urged PURA and the company to consider residential tiered pricing, saying that a higher unit price for high usage would better align rates with conservation goals.

Several commenters described perceived water-quality problems. Pat Perkins said the water "is drinkable, but it is horrible tasting" and called out hard water that shortens the life of water heaters and faucets. Leonard Martin urged the company to help customers with options to address mineral buildup and suggested reviewing the company's pension/profit-sharing arrangements as a potential cost to be reevaluated.

Other callers asked for more time to review filings and questioned notice and scheduling: Lukens noted Hazardville had requested four schedule changes in the docket and asked PURA to delay the proceedings by at least two weeks to give consumers more time to review the documents. Mary Ann Julian, who joined by telephone, said she missed part of the presentation and wanted clarity on which customers would be affected by recent changes.

PURA staff closed the hearing by giving participants contact information for docket 250712, inviting written comments to PURA.executivesecretary@ct.gov or to the agency's mailing address, and announcing that evidentiary hearings will be held in person at the PURA offices, 10 Franklin Square, New Britain, starting Dec. 1, 2025, and continuing daily through Dec. 8, 2025, at 10 a.m.; the commission said written comments to be included in the evidentiary record must be submitted by Dec. 18, 2025.

The hearing produced no formal votes or directives; PURA repeatedly reminded participants that any outcome will be based on the full record, including testimony, filings from intervenors such as the Office of Consumer Counsel, and the evidentiary hearing record.