Eversource challenges PURA’s storm-cost decision in court
Eversource filed a Connecticut Superior Court appeal on Oct. 15, 2026, challenging parts of the state’s decision on the utility’s storm-restoration costs from 2018 through 2023. The utility disputes PURA’s rejection of retrospective carrying charges and a roughly $7.7 million reduction in crew costs, arguing that the reduction used faulty methodology. Those are Eversource’s arguments, not court findings. CT Mirror reported that the appeal was filed in Superior Court in New Britain.
The appeal concerns a cost review with several distinct figures. Eversource requested $1.36 billion. PURA’s June draft decision approved $933 million, according to Attorney General William Tong. Its July 29 final decision authorized about $861 million before offsets, according to Tong and the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC).
| Stage or accounting item | Amount | What it represents |
|---|---|---|
| Eversource request | $1.36 billion | The utility’s storm-cost request |
| PURA June draft | $933 million | Amount approved in the draft decision |
| PURA July 29 final decision | About $861 million | Authorized before offsets |
| Offsets | About $193 million | Previously paid storm costs, mutual-aid revenue and a ratepayer-funded credit |
| Expected customer collection | About $668 million | Amount after offsets, plus applicable future carrying charges |
| Itemized disallowances | About $500 million | Carrying costs and principal storm costs |
Tong said the final authorized amount would be reduced by about $91 million in storm costs already paid, $2.1 million in mutual-aid revenue and a $100 million credit funded by ratepayers. Those reductions total about $193 million. Tong said about $668 million would be collected from customers after the offsets, plus applicable future carrying charges.
The offsets are separate from the approximately $500 million in itemized disallowances reported by OCC. OCC listed $396.7 million in carrying costs and $103.5 million in principal storm costs. The offset calculation and the disallowed-cost figures describe different parts of the decision; they should not be added together as though they were the same category. OCC said $63 million in vendor costs within the disallowed principal costs could be eligible for future recovery if Eversource provides supporting evidence.
The appeal’s disputed costs
Eversource challenges PURA’s denial of retrospective carrying charges and its method for reducing crew costs by roughly $7.7 million. The company says the crew-cost calculation used faulty methodology. The appeal puts those issues before the court, but the company’s objections are not judicial findings.
OCC head Claire Coleman criticized Eversource’s decision to appeal in an October 15 response. The dispute affects how much of the utility’s storm-response spending may be recovered from Connecticut customers. The final authorization, offsets, expected customer collection and itemized disallowances are separate figures in that calculation.
Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183(f), filing the appeal does not itself stay enforcement of an agency decision; a stay may be sought separately.
Sources
- Eversource files appeal of PURA’s storm costs decision, CT Mirror
- Governor Lamont and Acting Commissioner Cimino Statements on Eversource Appeal of PURA’s Storm Cost Recovery Decision, Office of the Governor of Connecticut
- Attorney General William Tong Responds to Final PURA Decision on Eversource Storm Cost Recovery, Connecticut Office of the Attorney General
- Consumer Counsel Statement on Unanimous Decision Cutting Eversource Storm Request by Nearly 40 Percent, Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel
- Consumer Counsel Responds to Eversource Appeal Seeking $400 Million More in Storm Costs, Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel
- Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 54, Connecticut General Assembly
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.