Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
Citations
- 352 Conn. 381
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 16-19e (a) (4) and (5)), the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) is required to ensure ''that the level and structure of rates'' charged by a public service company are ''sufficient, but no more than sufficient, to allow [the company] to cover [its] operating costs including, but not limited to, appropriate staffing levels, and capital costs, to attract needed capital and to maintain [its] financial integrity, and yet provide appropriate protection to the relevant public interests,'' and ''that the level and structure of rates charged customers . . . reflect prudent and efficient management of the franchise operation . . . .'' The plaintiff, A Co., a public service company that supplies water to certain Connecticut customers, appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which had dismissed in part A Co.'s administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant, PURA, in connection with A Co.'s rate application, which A Co. had filed in August, 2022. In its application, A Co. sought an increase in the rates it charges customers, and it attributed the need for the increase to various capital improvements to water utility infrastructure (plant additions) that it had made since it last requested an amendment to its rates in 2013. Specifically, A Co. sought to include in its rate base approximately $650 million in plant additions that it had completed between 2013 and 2022. A Co. also sought to recover approximately $3 million in deferred water conservation expenses that it had incurred between 2017 and 2021, and to fund approximately $2.2 million in expenditures made in connection with its employee incentive compensation program. Overall, A Co. sought to increase its approved revenue requirement from approximately $199 million to approximately $236 million, and its return on equity (ROE) from 9.63 percent to 10.35 percent. Between September and December, 2022, while the administrative proceeding was pending, A Co. continued to in
Judges: Mullins; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.