The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority held a scheduling conference on Dec. 10 in docket 2410O4 to set a process and timetable for reconsideration of three issues raised by the United Illuminating Company in its petition: the English Station return on equity (ROE) penalty, the compliance ROE penalty, and specified operations and maintenance (O&M) items.

United Illuminating, represented in the record by counsel identified as Bridal Vaughn and Attorney Pahn, proposed a focused process that would include a "statement of the case" from parties by Jan. 7, 2026; one or more technical meetings where company subject‑matter experts would be available for questioning; subsequent briefing and a draft decision; and a final decision issued on or before March 5, 2026. UI counsel said the statement of the case would ‘‘frame the issues’’ and could resemble a white paper summarizing the evidence and legal points the company believes warrant reconsideration. UI also said it reserves appellate rights on the overall case while seeking to avoid broader litigation by narrowing reconsideration to the three issues identified.

Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman told the authority that OCC has more questions than positions and stressed the need to protect procedural due process, saying that "if UI is putting on new evidence, all parties would have the right to cross examine on that new evidence." The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and other interveners echoed that view, arguing that because this is a contested case, any new documents UI seeks to admit should be the subject of an evidentiary hearing so witnesses can be sworn and cross‑examined.

DEEP specifically asked whether the commission would take judicial notice of two court‑related attachments UI included with its filing (a superior court memorandum of decision and a related motion ruling) and sought clarification on how, if at all, those items will be treated in the evidentiary record. UI counsel said the two attachments and a recent letter from the mayor of New Haven and a company compliance memo related to winding down a water‑heater program are the limited additional items it expects to seek admission and that they could be entered either as motion exhibits, adopted by witnesses at technical meetings, or formally introduced at an evidentiary hearing.

Several interveners, including OCC and the Office of the Attorney General, questioned whether pursuing a narrow reconsideration without any waiver of appellate rights could be efficient, warning that the process might be duplicative if an appeal follows. Thomas Lopez of the Office of Education Outreach and Enforcement said he was "not sure what we're doing here" without a waiver and asked whether the statement‑of‑case step was intended to facilitate settlement discussions or to set up a formal adjudicative record.

Vice Chair Arconti (noted in the record as Vice chairman Arcanti/Arconti) asked parties to consider whether any future appeal would challenge the merits or the process used to reach a final decision, noting that if process shortcomings are likely to be the basis for later appeals it would be better to surface them now. Commissioner Cheeseman urged a prompt, transparent process, saying the panel wants to avoid unnecessary duplication while ensuring parties' rights and statutory requirements are met.

PURA staff noted the agency will follow the notice of proceeding dated Oct. 22, 2024, including standard deadlines and response timelines, and that it will give notice in the record about any pieces of evidence it takes judicial notice of. The authority said it will consider the written filings and today's discussion and will publish a revised docket schedule for the proceeding shortly. "We reiterate the authority plans to issue a final decision on or before 03/05/2026," the authority said as it closed the conference.

What happened next: PURA will publish a revised docket schedule reflecting any process refinements; parties will decide whether to proceed with statement‑of‑case filings, request technical meetings or an evidentiary hearing, and identify witnesses for any new evidence they plan to introduce. If UI introduces evidence not previously in the record, interveners indicated they will press for the opportunity to cross‑examine sponsoring witnesses.

Sources: Comments and filings presented during the PURA scheduling conference in docket 2410O4 on Dec. 10, 2025, including oral statements by Claire Coleman (Consumer Counsel), counsel for United Illuminating, representatives of DEEP, the Office of the Attorney General, and Office of Education Outreach and Enforcement.