EVERSOURCE RAPS REGULATORS’ REPORT
Energy company fights back after a report that said its Tropical Storm Isaias response was error-prone and failed to comply with Connecticut law
Eversource Energy accused Connecticut regulators who issued a highly critical report of the utility’s response to Tropical Storm Isaias in August of “hindsight judgments and factual mistakes.”
The Berlin company acknowledged in a 158-page response to PURA’s March 19 report on the storm response that its performance “in certain respects ... warranted the disappointment and frustration” of customers and municipal officials.
However, it said the review by regulators is often “conducted inconsistently and insufficiently, but generally occurs by first identifying a decision point; then summarizing a very narrow set of facts from the record to identify a ‘reasonable’ course of action; and then finding that Eversource ‘should have known’ to take that action based on the facts that (PURA’s) proposed decision has assembled.”
Joe Cooper, a spokesman for PURA, said the agency will not comment. “Any reactions or comments we have will be addressed when the final decision is issued on April 28,” he said.
Regulators rebuked Eversource and United Illuminating for their preparation before the Aug. 4 storm and response following it. Neither utility “fully met the authority’s or their respective customers’ reasonable expectations for managing a major storm,” PURA said.
UI’s performance was at times “underwhelming,” but the utility that serves the Bridgeport and New Haven areas generally met the standards of “acceptable performance,” regulators said.
However, PURA cited Eversource for poor communications with customers, a failure to manage municipal liaison programs and an inadequate response to weather forecasts. Regulators say they will issue a final decision April 28 on their draft orders directing the utilities to change numerous procedures before and after storms.
About 800,000 customers lost power for days following the storm. Gov. Ned Lamont and lawmakers, responding to angry customers, criticized the utilities and enacted legislation in the fall that calls for regulators to consider utilities’ performance when setting rates.
Eversource has defended its preparation for, and response to, the storm, which was the second biggest to hit Connecticut in recent years, exceeded in destruction by a freak snow storm in October 2011. However, in its response to PURA’s proposed orders Eversource turned its attention to the regulators’ report, saying it contained numerouserrors and in some cases does not comply with state law.
For example, the utility said PURA’s response “may stack multiple penalties on the same underlying conduct” that does not meet state law.
PURA is ordering the utilities to update their emergency plans with detailed numbers of line crews and others needed to respond to storms of varying strength and proposals to improve communications and report blocked roads.
Regulators also directed Eversource and UI to include in their preparedness for high-level storms enough line resources and municipal liaisons to dedicate one of each to any potentially affected municipality who asks for it.
PURA said it will consider in a separate proceeding fines and penalties that could include a decision to not allow the utilities
to recover certain storm-related costs. Eversource said possible penalties cited by regulators exceed what state law permits.
Eversource also took aim at a key point of PURA’s criticism, that the utility failed to comply with “acceptable” standards in monitoring Isaias and gauging the storm’s strength.
PURA considered whether information was available to Eversource indicating that tropical storm conditions should have been expected, but regulators did not consider any of the “information, factors or considerations actually informing” Eversource’s decisions, the utility said.