PURA Declines UI’s Request For $14 Million Interim Rate Relief

by Julie Martin Banks CTNewsJunkie

Calling it nothing more than a “collateral attack,” the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority has declined to open United Illuminating’s request for $14 million in interim rate relief.
UI filed the request in November, arguing that PURA’s August rejection of UI’s proposed distribution rate increase of $131 million over three years has made it nearly impossible for the company to sustain the grid’s reliability and resiliency.
In addition to the interim rate increase request, UI appealed the August decision in Superior Court.

However, in its decision released last week, PURA’s commissioners say UI’s request for interim relief was merely a statement about the August decision.
“The Petition was filed as a direct result of the Company’s dissatisfaction with the 2023 rate increase, and, more importantly, the remedy sought depends ultimately upon the reversal or modification of the 2023 rate increase,” the decision states.
The decision was signed by PURA Chairwoman Marissa P. Gillett, Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski, and Commissioner Michael Caron.

The commissioners argue that the $14 million in interim rate relief would be in addition to the $23 million rate increase approved by PURA in August. Residential customers would have to deal with another 4.6% increase in distribution rates at a time when they are paying higher winter electric supply rates.
PURA has the discretionary authority to act on the interim rate request, but will only approve such a request if it is necessary to prevent a substantial hit to the financial well-being of the utility and safe and reliable service to its customers, according to the decision.
“Here, even if the facts alleged in the Petition are taken as true, the Authority could not conclude that the interim rate increase is necessary because the crux of the Company’s argument expressly relies on prognostications,” the decision states.

The commissioners further argue through the decision that the interim rate relief filing contends that certain problems may occur – a prediction based on limited data – “but which the Company might also be able to mitigate or avoid through efficient and prudent management.”
The decision made in August was based on a year-long investigation after UI filed its initial rate case.
“The Authority has no reason to believe the unanimously approved 2023 Rate Increase contains any material infirmities. To hold otherwise would require a recognition of changed conditions or plain error and the reopening and modification of the 2023 Rate Increase decision,” PURA’s decision states. “The mere existence of an administrative appeal is an insufficient basis on which to reconsider a decision. Further, given that the Petition directly links the interim rate increase to the administrative appeal, any approval of an interim rate increase here would be a de facto concession or admission that the 2023 Rate Increase contains substantive reversible errors. This the Authority has no reason to do.”

When the filing in November was made for interim relief, UI company officials said they wanted to ensure a safe and reliable distribution system and protect their front-line union workers while also continuing to attract capital investment, all of which the PURA August decision undermined.
“Our efforts to rebuild aging infrastructure, including substations in Bridgeport and Hamden, and to replace our vehicle fleet, which ensures our workers can quickly and safely respond to outages and emergencies, must be deferred until we are allowed to collect adequate revenue to sustain those efforts,” Frank Reynolds, President and CEO of UI, said at the time.