CL&P To Ratepayers: Please Remit $414 Million For Storms of 2011-12

by Categorized: Public finance, Utilities Date:

Connecticut Light & Power filed more than 600 pages of documents with regulators Thursday, launching its case for reimbursement of $462 million the company said it spent on five major storms over the last two years including Sandy, Irene and the freak snowstorm of October, 2011.

The company had said it might not seek a payback until 2014.  In all, the company said it spent $462 million but is seeking less from ratepayers.

Here’s the rundown, with the October snowstorm likely to generate the most controversy:

1. October 2011 Nor’easter snowstorm:  $175 million (1.44 million customers restored).

2. Storm Sandy, October-November 2012: $156 million (856,184 customers restored).

3. Tropical Storm Irene, August 2011: $111 million (1 million customers restored).

4. June 2011 storm: $11 million (209,045 customers restored).

5. Sept. 2012 storm: $9 million (80,575 customers restored).

CL&P is seeking $414 million of the total because its parent company, Northeast Utilities, agreed to forgo $40 million from the nor’easter as a condition of its 2012 merger with Boston-based NSTAR.  Several official reports panned CL&P’s handling of that storm recovery, which cost the former head of the company his job. In addition, an $8 million storm recovery fund was already set aside.

It remains unclear what the reimbursements would to do customers’ rates. The $414 million amounts to an average of nearly $400 from each of the company’s 1.2 million customers — money that would be added to the rate base, collected over a period of years.

“The damage from these natural disasters and the response to complete repairs was extraordinary and unlike anything in CL&P history,” said Bill Herdegen, the CL&P president.   “Typically, storms of this magnitude strike years or decades apart, but in 16 months, we experienced four of the company’s ten most devastating storms.  Responding to Mother Nature’s wrath is a necessary, but costly part of the utility business.”

Those costs included bringing in thousands of outside tree and line crews and replacing thousands of utility poles, transformers and segments of wire.

“Necessary” is the key word, as the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority will consider whether the company’s actions were that, and were prudent.



The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

9 thoughts on “CL&P To Ratepayers: Please Remit $414 Million For Storms of 2011-12

  1. CromwellDem

    They don’t have that risk built into their business model already? They are still profitable.

  2. nottoowildbill

    Well, I guess they can pay me for my spoiled food, those unpaid days off of work, and pain and suffering when I had to sit in the cold for all those days.

    1. wildbill

      And how many more days would you have been without service if they didn’t fix it? Someone must pay. Oh, your not suggesting that the taxpayer pays it are you?

      Read closely. It will be itemized out over a period of years. I’ll bet no one was screaming about costs when the ‘tricity cut. when the gas couldn’t pump. when supermarkets closed because perishable food went bad. I’ll bet you were praying, “please…please… power, please come back. I won’t hurt you none.”

  3. Fred Hamilton

    Some, perhaps much of the cost for these storm repairs was caused by the incompetent management by CL&P of the repair crews.

    I found six trucks and crews from Michigan parked for hours waiting for instructions on where to go. Town crews that wanted to help could not learn which power lines were shut down, so it was safe to clear roads.

    There should be a deduction from their cost estimates for those inefficiences

  4. Joe

    C.L.&P’s rates ALREADY are 4x’s the national average. So high anyone would be foolish to buy an electric battery powered motor vehicle. Gasoline is cheaper. “Reimburse”, indeed !

Comments are closed.