Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Asset Pledge Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PURA hearing: OCC challenges confidentiality of financing exhibit, cites Connecticut statute 16-43
Summary
At a continuation of docket 25-0811, the Office of Consumer Counsel argued that portions of Charter's late-filed Exhibit 18 are improperly marked confidential because they describe assets pledged in financing agreements that OCC says Connecticut General Statute 16-43 requires the authority to review; Charter disagreed and the commission took the protective-order motion under advisement.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority heard competing arguments over whether parts of Charter Communications’ late-filed exhibit should remain confidential and whether financing documents pledging subsidiary assets fall within the commission’s review.
Bert Cohen of the Office of Consumer Counsel told commissioners the late-filed Exhibit 18 was not financial ‘‘there's no numbers, no interest rate calculations, or anything like that,’’ and said the exhibit appears to disclose which public-service-company assets are pledged. ‘‘That information is by statute 16-43 required to be disclosed to this authority,’’ Cohen said, urging that the material not be kept proprietary.
David Bogan, counsel for Charter, apologized for the timing of the filing and said the filing procedure in Rhode Island differs. He noted the unredacted versions of the documents are available to the authority and OCC and said the companies did not intend to prejudice any party. ‘‘The unredacted versions are available to the authority and OCC,’’ Bogan said.
Commissioners heard objections from Charter that the Rhode Island filings and law are not dispositive for Connecticut and that some questions called for legal conclusions. The presiding officer, Commissioner Holly Cheeseman, said she would take the protective-order motion related to LFE 18 under advisement and issue a ruling later; parties reserved the right to pursue proprietary questions in a closed session.
The dispute centers on whether financing indentures and related footnoted securities agreements — including references to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to banks such as the Bank of New York Mellon — require public disclosure in Connecticut under the statute. OCC argued the public should be able to rely on that information in the authority’s final decision; Charter said the relevance is limited and asked to brief the legal question.
The commission did not rule at the hearing. It will address written objections and legal briefing on the record and may convene a closed, proprietary session if necessary to examine confidential material.
