Eversource alleged in a filing that former Public Utilities Regulatory Authority chairman Marissa Gillett inappropriately delayed or dismissed the company’s multiple applications to recover roughly $1.2 billion in storm recovery costs for five years’ worth of weather events, thus adding $327 million in interest – known as “carrying charges” – to the debt that may ultimately be borne by ratepayers.
According to documents, Eversource submitted to PURA $634 million of storm costs accrued between 2018 and 2021 for review in December 2023, but that review was rejected. A year later they submitted an additional $173 million for review to cover through January of 2023, but were again denied a prudence review. As storm costs and interest continued to accrue, the total now stands at $1.5 billion.
“In particular, the bias, misconduct and abuse of discretion by the former chairperson have resulted in financial damage to Eversource and its customers that will be difficult, if not impossible to remediate, with the recovery of storm costs standing as the most problematic outcome of her tenure,” attorney Cheryl Kimball wrote in the filing. “Due to the misconduct of the former chairperson, Eversource’s customers are now facing a $1.5 billion debt obligation to Eversource.”
Gillett resigned as chair of PURA amid scandal as the utility regulator had to admit in court that she had ignored and violated state statute over multiple years by single-handedly adjudicating substantive motion decisions, hid public documents, and possibly perjured herself under oath during a hearing before the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee. PURA’s admission that numerous cases had been mishandled with likely have lingering downstream effects, including Eversource’s request to recover storm costs.
According to the filing, Eversource alleges Gillett kept delaying a cost recovery review and removed the company’s application for a prudence review with no explanation, and then filed the request as a motion in a distribution ratemaking case. Distribution rate cases – unlike the annual rate cases that account for public benefits charges, known as RAM cases – typically occur once every four to six years.
Additionally, Eversource claims their attempts to divert ratepayer money to the “Storm Fund” as a way of alleviating some of the interest charges were also denied. According to Eversource’s filing, those carrying costs, or interest, on the outstanding storm recovery debt are accumulating at a rate of $7 million per month. Eversource contends that 65 percent of the total storm costs have been on file with PURA for more than two years.
“The former chairperson improperly shuttled the Company’s initial storm petitions between dockets and twice re-docketed those petitions as motions, although the company did not file motions,” Kimball wrote. “The former chairperson ignored multiple filings by the Company explaining its legal rights to a prudence review and twice denied the Company’s requests for PURA to increase the contribution to the Storm Fund made by customers through rates to offset the amassing carrying costs on the outstanding deferral. The former chairperson (apparently on her own volition) extended the dates for the proceeding at least three times between March 2024 and September 2025, while milestones for the proceeding kept changing.”
Eversource alleges Gillett tried to withhold the storm recovery costs to force them into a distribution rate case so she could cut their rates as she did with Aquarian Water Company, Southern Connecticut Gas Company and Connecticut Natural Gas Company. The gas companies were ultimately successful in their court appeal of PURA’s rate decision, after PURA admitted that statutes were violated, and Gillett admitted to deleting key evidence from her phone.
Eversource cites a radio interview with former PURA commissioner Michael Caron as part of their evidence, with Caron stating that one of the reasons the storm costs had grown so much “is that our previous chair thought it was leverage to try and get the utilities who had their billion dollars hanging out there to come in sooner for a rate case.”
“And she was very interested in having them come in, and there are some of the things that she had done previously in other rate cases where she really thought she could lower rates, and while she did in a couple of instances, the courts have since found that those dockets are what they called tainted and are going to be remanded back to the authority for adjudication,” Caron said on WTIC radio on January 24. “And consequently, it didn’t save ratepayers anything – in fact it pushed the costs out more and more.”
Those storm recovery costs could mean a sizeable increase to Connecticut ratepayers’ bills in a state that already has some of the highest electricity costs in the country. It also comes following a massive increase to the public benefits charges on customers’ bills that pay for government programs.
PURA under Gillett pushed off allowing utilities to recover public benefits costs for years during the COVID pandemic and well into 2023, for everything from a contract with the Millstone nuclear plant to covering costs for those who didn’t pay their bill. The resulting buildup of costs for ratepayers to $737 million came due in 2024, increased the average electric bill by more than $40 per month and sparked public outcry and political finger-pointing.
How much it could affect ratepayers will depend on PURA’s review and the number of years over which Eversource is allowed to recover the storm costs.
Eversource made its filing in response to the Office of Consumer Counsel and the Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement’s questioning of how Gillett’s actions affected their requests for a prudence review and disputed when a utility company could start amassing carrying charges – Eversource argues that carrying charges begin to accrue from when the costs are incurred, while OCC argues carrying charges don’t begin to accrue until the prudency review determines the costs are recoverable.
“PURA’s current and historic treatment of carrying charges on deferrals, including storm deferrals, is to only allow the accrual of carrying charges as of the date when PURA certifies the asset on a going forward basis,” wrote Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman. “Hence, in the interim between when storm costs are incurred and when the Authority makes its determination on the allowed regulatory asset amount, ratepayers are not paying for the financing costs incurred by the Company.”
Conversely, Eversource argues their right to carrying charges has been upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court and that carrying charges from the date incurred have been awarded in previous PURA cases. While a 2023 United Illuminating storm recovery case only allowed interest from the point of the prudence review, Eversource argues this was a departure from past practice and due to a “flawed ruling” by Gillett.
OCC argued that Eversource also delayed and could have come in for a rate case to recover their storm costs, which is what Eversource alleges Gillett wanted and was denying them a prudence review to force them into a rate case where she could reduce their rates and harm their ability to generate outside investment.
“Eversource’s sudden haste is curious when examining the facts,” Coleman wrote. “Eversource could have filed a rate case to recover these costs. It could have done so particularly when PURA denied its request for contested prudency review of storm costs. It chose not to and instead filed 74 motions requesting more than 1000 days of extensions.”
Eversource’s last distribution rate hearing, which determines the company’s return on equity, was in 2018. The Hartford Courant reported Eversource saw a big increase in profits in 2025, following “significant one-time losses” in 2023 and 2024 from Eversource’s divestment in the Revolution Wind farm and a possible sale of Aquarion Water Company. The article also notes, however, that Eversource’s Connecticut electric company – Connecticut Light and Power – is “significantly underearning” its allowable return on equity.
According to a slide presentation offered by Eversource, the company is seeking a settlement with PURA saying that they can be flexible with a settlement but “litigation requires Eversource to defend 100%.”
“The former chairperson’s actions and contrived decisions ultimately caused Eversource serious financial harm, while swelling the storm-cost obligations of customers,” Kimball wrote. “It is yet to be shown whether it will be possible to overcome this damage in this docket, and it may be that appeal to the Superior Court is the only option left to the Company to remediate the damage that has occurred.”
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Well Gilbert’s malfeasance now has an eye popping price tag. How she hijacked a state agency to carry out a biased and illegal agenda would make a great book. The deafening silence from Lamont and the one party cohort in Hartford is remarkable but not unexpected. I hope Eversource recovers as much as it can and the word “settlement” should be stamped on Lamont’s forehead.
“Gillett’s”
Lamont instituted Gillett into this role – another political appointment by Ned that went south. Lamont needs to go.
Well, given how much they have raised MY bill this winter, a couple Billion shouldn’t take too long… 😔😕😟
When is this madness going to end….we pay additional $ to artificially create a market for solar and heat pumps, we pay additional $ to purchase our power from renewables……we additional $ for people who cant afford the ridiculous cost of energy which is self inflicted and now we are going to pay additional $ to cover an incompetent attempt at strong arming the utility company….can anyone from planet normal get elected in this state ?