AARP Connecticut Urges PURA to Deny United Illuminating Rate Increase Request

AARP Connecticut recently submitted comments to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) in opposition to a request by the United Illuminating Company to implement a rate increase that will significantly raise the cost of electricity for Connecticut residential customers. The complete testimony submitted to PURA by AARP Connecticut is below.

“AARP calls on PURA to reject the electricity rate increase request by United Illuminating,” said John Erlingheuser, AARP Connecticut Senior Advocacy Director. “The latest excessive rate increase by one of Connecticut’s residential energy providers will be one more financial worry for residents 50-plus and their families – especially older and low-income residents – already facing a daily challenge to make ends meet, especially in the current inflationary environment.”

The comments AARP Connecticut submitted to PURA follows:

The United Illuminating Company Rate Case

Application of the United Illuminating Company to Amend its Rate Schedules

Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”) Docket No. 24-01-04

Comments of AARP Connecticut - July 1, 2025

AARP hereby submits comments on the United Illuminating Company (“UI” or the “Company”) rate case on behalf of its members in Connecticut. AARP represents residential customers, particularly the over fifty population. Many of our members are on fixed incomes. Others are low income and struggle to make ends meet especially given the currently elevated level of economic uncertainty. An approximate $62.1 million, or 24.4%, residential distribution rate increase, is excessive. We urge residential customer impacts to be top of mind in evaluating the request of UI.

Our specific comments are as follows:

The proposed rate increase of UI should be reduced to ensure consumer rates include only those costs deemed to be just and reasonable by the PURA.
The PURA should determine the cost effectiveness and need for the additional approximately $105 million of total distribution revenue UI requested for its customers to pay given the series of adjustments recommended to UI’s revenue requirement by the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (“OCC”) witness Mr. John Defever, CPA in direct and surrebuttal testimony. Unnecessary or uneconomic spending should be rejected. An extensive review of UI’s known and measurable adjustments in this file must be completed with only just and reasonable cost assumptions used to modify customer rates.

The Company’s proposed allocation of revenues to residential customers is inequitable.
As noted above, the proposal by UI for allocating its proposed revenue increases to the customer classes results in the residential customer class being increased by 24.4% when the overall increase was calculated to be 19.61% for all retail distribution customers. OCC witness Ms. Caroline Palmer recommends a Basic Customer (Alt Demand) allocation adjustment to UI cost of service model. The recommendation provides a compelling argument that residential customer class distribution revenues need only be increased by 17.0%, rather than the 24.4% proposed by UI, prior to any adjustments to UI’s revenue requirement as proposed by the intervening parties.

The requested 10.5% is too high and is not supported by current financial market conditions.
UI’s requested return on equity of 10.5% appears to be elevated when compared to current financial market conditions. Furthermore, the requested 10.5% return on equity appears elevated compared to the record evidence provided by Connecticut Public Regulatory Authority Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement witness Mr. Aaron L. Rothschild and OCC witness Mr. J. Randall Woolridge, Ph. D. Any unreasonable increase in UI’s authorized return on equity will further magnify the increased cost to customers from this proceeding.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment.

John Erlingheuser
AARP Connecticut Senior Associate State Director, Advocacy