Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ami Cost Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PURA rescinds AMI cost‑recovery tariff for Eversource, cites lack of investment and new securitization law
Summary
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority voted July 1, 2026 to rescind a December 2024 decision that established an AMI cost‑recovery tariff for Connecticut Light and Power (d/b/a Eversource). Staff said the company made no AMI investments and that an upcoming rate case plus Public Act 25‑173 make the interim tariff unnecessary.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority voted July 1, 2026 to rescind its December 2024 decision establishing an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) cost‑recovery tariff for the Connecticut Light and Power Company (doing business as Eversource Energy).
Authority staff attorney Kate Keenan, summarizing staff’s recommendation, said the authority’s record shows the company “has not made any AMI related investments or otherwise moved forward with AMI in Connecticut,” and therefore the AMI tariff “has not motivated or accelerated any AMI deployment as intended.” Keenan told commissioners that the company’s planned distribution rate filing later this month makes an interim cost‑recovery mechanism unnecessary and that Public Act 25‑173 provides a securitization option for certain AMI costs incurred after Jan. 1, 2025.
The order rescinds the AMI cost‑recovery mechanism in its entirety. The authority cited three reasons for rescission: the company’s decision to delay AMI implementation, the company’s imminent distribution rate case as the appropriate forum to evaluate AMI costs, and the passage of Public Act 25‑173 authorizing securitization of specified AMI costs.
Commissioner Jan Beecher told the panel she would support the order while noting the authority “speaks only through its orders” and that evolving technology, broadband deployment and smart devices change the policy calculus for metering investments. Commissioner Holly Cheeseman echoed those points and said the forthcoming rate case is the correct venue for assessing prudence and cost recovery.
Chairman Tom Wheel said he had disqualified himself from the original proceeding because of prior participation at the Office of Consumer Counsel and abstained from the vote. The authority adopted the rescission by roll call (four yes, one abstention).
What happens next: the authority indicated AMI costs will be addressed within the company’s upcoming distribution rate amendment application and that securitization under Public Act 25‑173 is an available funding mechanism to minimize rate shock if AMI costs are deemed prudently incurred.
