Here’s a proposed ruling a lot of us can get behind.
A decision today by the state Public Utilities Relulatory Authority reinforces what a lot of municipal officials and state residents who spent days in the dark already know — Connecticut Light & Power failed miserably during Tropical Storm Irene and the Halloween snowstorm.
A final decision is expected Aug. 1. The draft decision found that CL&P didn’t get ready in time and kept telling us the power was going to be coming back on — when many towns were left in the dark for days.
The draft decision, if approved, means that before granting any future requests for rate increases or to recover costs incurred by the storm, PURA would have to consider that the power company did a poor job in responding to the storms.
A few highlights:
The Connecticut Light and Power Company’s performance in the aftermath of the 2011 storms was deficient and inadequate in the areas of outage and service restoration preparation of personnel, support of its municipal liaison program, development and communication of restoration times to customers, and overall communication to customers, other service providers and municipalities, as to warrant regulatory sanction. In this Decision, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority also concludes that because of The Connecticut Light and Power Company’s failure to obtain adequate assistance in advance of the October 29, 2011 storm, its response to that storm was deficient.
…
The Authority also concludes that because of CL&P’s failure to obtain adequate assistance in advance of the October Storm, its response to that storm was deficient. The Authority establishes a rebuttable presumption that CL&P should be imposed an appropriate reduction to its allowed return on equity in its next ratemaking proceeding as a penalty for poor management performance and to provide incentives for improvement. In addition, in conformance with the Settlement Agreement between NU and NSTAR, the Authority retains further jurisdictional approval for recovery of an appropriate level of 2011 storm costs at the time CL&P seeks recovery of any such costs. Similarly, the Authority will exercise its regulatory oversight for the recovery of 2011 storm-related costs at the time UI seeks the recovery of those costs in rates.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
2 Responses to PURA: Storm Failure Should Cost CL&P
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
The supreme irony in this ‘ruling’ is that the pencil-necks who made it wouldn’t have the foggiest notion of how to prepare for or respond to a storm of this nature or magnitude – a storm that climate experts say was a once in 500-year storm. Couple that with the fact the DPUC has been squeezing the state’s utility companies for decades to reduce their costs which inevitably included discouraging them to pursue preventive tree trimming. So, who was to blame for the consequences? Perhaps the DPUC and PURA should look in a mirror.
Many geologists believe that the Northeast will suffer a large earthquake greater than magnitude 8.0 sometime in the next 100 years. I could happen next year, or it could happen 100 years from now or it might not occur until much further into the future. No one knows. Geologists aren’t dieties. However, when that event finally does occur, it will likely have devastating effects – including significant damage to our utility infrastructure – electricity, gas, water and sewage. How would the DPUC and PURA expect our power companies (specifically) to prepare? What would that preparation cost, and would the DPUC/PURA approve utility companies to pass that cost on to their customers? Do we pay now, or pay later? Which approach would result in the lowest net cost to consumers?
Know any dieties? If so, please advise the folks at PURA – I’m sure they would like to know.