United Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

Citations

• 350 Conn. 660

Syllabus

The plaintiff, U Co., an electric distribution company, appealed from the judgments of the trial court, which had dismissed its consolidated adminis- trative appeals from two final decisions of the defendant, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). In one of its decisions, PURA found that U Co. had violated its statutory obligations in connection with its emergency planning, storm recovery performance, and other actions taken in response to an August, 2020 tropical storm, and announced its intention to impose a fifteen basis point reduction of U Co.'s authorized return on equity (ROE). In its other decision, PURA imposed more than $1.2 million in fines on U Co. pursuant to statute (§ 16-32i) for its violation of storm performance standards and $61,000 in additional civil penalties for U Co.'s failure to timely report two minor accidents that occurred in the aftermath of the storm, in violation of statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 16-16). On appeal, U Co. challenged the ROE reduction, as well as the fines and civil penalties imposed for U Co.'s violation of performance standards and its late reporting of the minor accidents. Held: PURA's subsequent decision, made during the pendency of this appeal, not to implement the fifteen basis point ROE reduction rendered moot the issue of whether PURA lacked statutory authority to implement that ROE The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 350 Conn. 660 NOVEMBER, 2024 661 United Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority reduction, and neither the voluntary cessation nor the collateral conse- quences exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The application of the equitable remedy of vacatur to the portion of PURA's order authorizing the ROE reduction and to that portion of the trial court's judgment upholding that order was appropriate. The failure to report a minor accident, as contemplated by § 16-16, did not qualify as a ''continued violation'