Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates warn PURA that utility proposals could threaten medically dependent households
Summary
Disability Rights Connecticut and public commenters told the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority that proposed changes to hardship and payment programs would make it harder for people with disabilities to keep lifesaving utility service, and urged rejection of industry proposals that tighten protections.
Get email alerts on the Medical Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheldon Taubman, litigation attorney at Disability Rights Connecticut, told the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority during its technical meeting that proposed utility changes would worsen access to essential services for people with disabilities. He said Connecticut’s 2024 poverty rate for people with disabilities was 25.8% and argued that many medically dependent customers lack the documentation or support needed to claim protections.
Taubman said many people with disabilities “rely upon electricity for functioning with essential medical equipment needed to allow for basic independence outside of an institutional setting or even to be kept alive,” and warned that reducing access to hardship protections would increase life‑threatening harms. He noted only about 10,000 people were enrolled in medical protection in Connecticut despite a state population of about 3.6 million and a 12% disability rate, saying short verification windows and administrative barriers leave eligible people unprotected.
Advocates urged PURA to reject company proposals that would require larger upfront reinstatement payments or remove protections after a single missed payment. Community groups, veteran advocates and public commenters echoed the call for clearer outreach and emergency support: “If a person’s medical equipment cannot be kept charged, the consequences can be life threatening,” one commenter said. PURA staff and company representatives did not adopt an immediate rule change at the meeting; the docket remains open and companies said they could provide follow‑up data and clarifications in response to interrogatories.

