CT Consumer Counsel Wants $8 million Returned To UI Customers

CONNECTICUT, CT — Acting state Consumer Counsel Richard E. Sobolewski announced Thursday that the Office of Consumer Counsel has filed a motion requesting that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority immediately order the return of approximately $8,161,088 in "overearnings" to the electric ratepayers of The United Illuminating Company. A PURA spokeswoman said several actions have already been put into motion.

UI serves approximately 335,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in the greater New Haven and Bridgeport areas of Connecticut. UI's service territory includes 17 Connecticut towns and cities in an area totaling 335 square miles along or near the shoreline of Long Island Sound.

Under the earnings sharing mechanism in United Illuminating’s approved rate plan, ratepayers are entitled to receive 50 percent of every dollar that the company "overearns," according to Sobolewski.

Due to an ongoing review, however, PURA has not yet ordered that the customer share of United Illuminating’s 2019 overearnings be credited back to ratepayers, Sobolewski said.

"As recent events have amply demonstrated, Connecticut ratepayers have little tolerance for increases in the cost of electric service," Sobolewski said. "By withholding millions of dollars in rate relief that United Illuminating's ratepayers are legally entitled to, PURA is needlessly protracting the economic pain that working families and small businesses feel when trying to cover their energy costs, particularly during this unprecedented time. This money legally belongs to all United Illuminating ratepayers—I implore PURA to return it to them.”

United Illuminating originally requested PURA approval to return the customer share of overearnings to ratepayers in March of this year. In June, however, PURA issued an order attempting to divert the money otherwise due back to ratepayers to a third-party.

OCC swiftly objected, arguing that PURA’s ruling was not in accord with United Illuminating's approved rate plan, contrary to Connecticut law, and would have the practical effect of increasing rates for all customers. In response, PURA reopened United Illuminating’s most recent rate case for the sole purpose of reexamining the previously approved earnings sharing mechanism. In the months since then, PURA has taken no additional action while the millions of dollars legally due back to ratepayers have been trapped in administrative stasis.

Sobolewski noted that OCC intends to continue fighting to ensure that United Illuminating ratepayers receive their designated share of the overearnings at issue.

Customers desiring to comment on the return of overearnings to all ratepayers are encouraged to contact PURA via e-mail at pura.executivesecretary@ct.gov.

Pura issued the following summary of actions to date:

"United Illuminating (UI) proposed returning its overearnings of approximately $8.2MM via a six-month rate credit that would amount to a limited $0.003368 per kWh credit to consumers, or approximately $2.36 per month for an average customer for no more than six months.

"Instead, in keeping with the spirit of PURA’s extensive actions taken to-date in its COVID-19 response docket (see https://portal.ct.gov/PURA/Consumer-Services/PURA-COVID-Actions), PURA thoughtfully directed UI to convey the $8.2MM to Operation Fuel to assist customers in underserved communities within UI's service territory - an action that would have had a much greater impact on the customers hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Indeed, Operation Fuel is not simply a "third party" as labeled by the OCC, but rather is a respected, reputable and trusted community partner that is responsible for “filling the gap for our state’s most vulnerable residents – children, senior citizens, working families, and people with chronic medical conditions.” In fact, PURA’s actions are consistent with recent settlement attempts that consumer counsels in other New England states have tried to negotiate with their public service commissions during this crisis (see, e.g. https://www.pressherald.com/2020/06/02/state-regulators-reject-500000-coronavirus-relief-fund-for-cmp-customers/).

"Instead of supporting PURA's efforts to assist the hardest hit and most vulnerable customers in the state, the Office of Consumer Counsel objected based on procedural grounds. As a result, PURA reopened the case on July 8 and has been working on resolving the procedural deficiencies claimed by the OCC in the three weeks since. The fact that the OCC has seized upon this story today in an effort to pile on to recent events is their prerogative, but it is not constructive nor does it offer the full narrative, which PURA will not stand for. Hopefully, we can swiftly return to the real work at hand, including tackling the ratemaking process in Connecticut, during which PURA would gladly welcome OCC’s full participation."