CONNECTICUT, CT — Eversource Energy Thursday filed an administrative appeal in New Britain Superior Court that challenges a decision by state regulators to deny nearly $400 million in interest payments and cut additional expenses from its request for reimbursement of storm-response costs incurred between 2018 and 2023.
Two of the most significant storms in the time frame were Tropical Storm Isaias in August 2020 and Tropical Storm Henri in August 2021. Together, they accounted for about 60 percent of the costs in an earlier phase of PURA's review, according to the agency's annual report.
Other major storms and weather events documented in reporting and regulatory records include:
The named defendant in the appeal is the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority.
Said utility officials following the filing, "The ramifications of this appeal are significant and will help to provide clarity regarding the legal principles which dictate our ability to finance storm cost recovery for customers who demand that their power be restored as fast as possible with minimal interruption."
The utility, in the appeal, is arguing that PURA improperly rejected interest, known as carrying costs, that Eversource accumulated while financing storm repairs as regulators reviewed the expenses.
The company is also disputing about $7.7 million in crew-cost reductions, which it says were based on a flawed methodology.
PURA's July decision approved $933 million in storm-related costs but rejected approximately $397 million in interest and disallowed other expenses. The overall reductions also reflected offsets for costs already recovered through other mechanisms.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said he will defend a state regulatory decision rejecting the $397 million.
The situation goes back to Dec. 15, 2025, when Eversource asked PURA to approve nearly $1 billion in projected costs from major storms that occurred between 2018 and 2023, along with more than $300 million in associated interest payments.
Tong argued that the utility's request for the interest payments was premature because the costs had not yet been fully reviewed and approved.
On June 30, PURA gave its approval to $933 million in accumulated storm costs but tossed out the full request for interest payments, thus agreeing with the attorney general's position.
Tong said the request was beyond compensation.
"The workers who restore our power following catastrophic storms deserve compensation and gratitude — that is without doubt. PURA was right to approve those costs," Tong said. "But that wasn't enough for Eversource. This fight is about hundreds of millions of dollars in unjustified interest payments for years where they had never even asked for recovery."
Tong said his office would challenge the appeal to "prevent Connecticut ratepayers from being responsible for what he characterized as excessive and unjustified charges."
According to the attorney general's office, PURA has historically required storm-related costs to be reviewed and deemed prudent before interest payments can be authorized.
The office also raised questions about Eversource's storm-cost requests, including expenses involving outside contractors, the inclusion of costs from storms that may not qualify for recovery, pre-staging expenses, insufficient documentation and the application of mileage standards.
The dispute centers on whether Eversource can recover interest on storm-related expenses accumulated before the utility's costs were reviewed and approved by regulators.
Said Eversource in the appeal, "PURA cites to
the unfounded proposition that carrying costs accruing prior to a determination of prudence are barred for recovery from customers, even if the underlying deferred costs are ultimately found to be prudently incurred and substantial evidence demonstrates that the Company did, in fact, incur
capital costs to support the deferral as it accrued over time.
"Specifically, PURA improperly determined that the retrospective carrying costs are a class of costs not within the initial deferral authorization and not within any reasonable
assurance of recovery at the time the regulatory asset was authorized.
"To reach this conclusion, PURA created a new 'legal standard that improperly separates treatment of the deferred storm costs."
Tong's office said Eversource filed 74 motions seeking extensions to respond to discovery requests, resulting in more than 1,000 days of delays.
Gov. Ned Lamont said, "This is an absurd money grab by Eversource, and we won't stand for it. Our ratepayers cannot afford to pay any more, nor should they have to."
Said Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Acting Commissioner Emma Cimino, "PURA's job is to ensure that ratepayer dollars are spent appropriately and according to the legal standards. In this case, PURA made a final decision that Eversource is not entitled to recover certain storm carrying costs based on its review and the law. DEEP respects that decision and believes Eversource should respect it as well."
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Across Connecticut Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.