What’s in the Connecticut Eversource Rate Case Testimony, and How You Can Weigh In

Eversource’s upcoming request to raise electricity rates in Connecticut is now before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) as Docket No. 26-05-10. On October 21, 2026, groups participating in the case as intervenors filed written testimony with their recommendations to PURA.

A rate case is the formal process a utility uses to ask regulators to change what it charges customers. Eversource, formerly The Connecticut Light and Power Company, filed its rate case application on July 14, 2026. This marks the company’s first base distribution rate case since PURA’s 2018 decision, an abnormally long time between rate cases.  This one covers Eversource’s base distribution rates: the part of your bill that runs their company and pays for delivering electricity to your home through Eversource’s poles and wires. According to the application:

• Eversource says its current rates leave it about $727 million short of what it needs, including past storm costs, or about $451 million without them.
• If approved as Eversource requested, the average residential bill would rise about 18% (roughly $32.91 per month) including storm costs, or about 11% (roughly $20 per month) without them.
• Eversource requested a 10.25% return on equity. This is the profit rate Eversource’s shareholders would be allowed to earn on the money they have invested in the company, which customers pay for through their bills.

PURA has since dealt with the storm costs in a separate case, so the numbers without storm costs are the ones that matter most here.

Alongside the rate increase, Eversource proposed a new way of setting its rates for the next four years, known as a performance-based multi-year rate plan. Instead of going back to regulators for each rate change, Eversource would raise rates each year using a set formula, with some financial rewards and penalties tied to how well it performs. That proposal is the focus of the testimony summarized below.

Lindsay Griffin’s testimony

Lindsay Griffin, Vote Solar’s Senior Regulatory Director for the Northeast, filed testimony on behalf of Acadia Center and Conservation Law Foundation. Her testimony looks at the performance-based regulation (PBR) parts of Eversource’s proposal.

After Tropical Storm Isaias in 2020, Connecticut passed the Take Back Our Grid Act, which told PURA to create a new way of regulating electric utilities called performance-based regulation (PBR). Under the traditional approach, a utility earns more profit the more it spends on poles, wires and other equipment. PBR aims to reward utilities instead for good service and for keeping costs down. PURA has been working out the details since 2021 in Docket No. 21-05-15 and three related cases, with input from Eversource, the Office of Consumer Counsel, Vote Solar, and many other stakeholders, including CLF and Acadia Center. PURA has not yet issued final decisions in those cases.

Ms. Griffin’s testimony concludes that Eversource has not shown that its plan would lead to fair rates for customers (“just and reasonable” is the legal standard PURA must apply) or meet the goals PURA set for PBR in 2023. Her main points:

• Funding for new capital projects (meaning, profits on new equipment). Capital projects are long-lasting investments like substations, poles and power lines. Under PURA’s draft approach, Eversource could start charging customers for some of these costs during the plan, but could not earn a profit on them until regulators review whether the spending was prudent (i.e., reasonable). Eversource’s version would let it start earning that profit as soon as a project is up and running. By Eversource’s own estimate, that difference is worth about $124.1 million over the four-year plan.
• Limits on cost growth (meaning, built-in cost controls). Eversource’s formula for early rate increases expects the company to find savings in its day-to-day operating costs, but not in its spending on equipment and construction. The savings target it proposes is also slightly below zero (−0.03%), so it would not require any efficiency gains at all. The testimony finds that this setup encourages the company to choose costly construction projects over cheaper solutions.
• The spending forecast (meaning, how much Eversource could collect for equipment and construction). Eversource proposed that it would be based on its own five-year spending forecast. The testimony finds that Eversource did not build this forecast using the planning steps PURA has proposed, such as studying different possibilities for future electricity demand, considering cheaper options that avoid building new poles and wires (known as “non-wires alternatives”), and getting input from the public and other groups.
• Performance incentives (meaning, rewards and incentives). Eversource proposed financial rewards and penalties tied to how reliable its service is and how well it serves customers, with penalties capped at about $10 million per year. The testimony notes that Eversource would accept these only if PURA approves its full plan, and that several of its design choices would make the company less accountable, such as measuring performance against a starting point that includes 2026. It also notes that Eversource folded its measure of how quickly it connects small solar projects and other small energy resources into a broader customer service score, instead of tracking it on its own.

Ms. Griffin recommends that PURA:

1. Reject Eversource’s proposed multi-year rate plan.
2. If PURA wants to start using PBR for Eversource now, use the approach PURA developed in its own PBR cases, and require Eversource to redo its grid plan to meet PURA’s proposed planning requirements before deciding how much it can spend on equipment in later years.
3. Otherwise, set rates the traditional way, based on a review of Eversource’s costs, without the automatic yearly adjustments Eversource proposed.
4. Either way, adopt the rewards and penalties PURA itself has proposed, whether or not a multi-year plan is approved.
5. Make clear that this decision does not decide how PBR will work statewide, since PURA is still developing those rules.

Dr. Will Taylor of Acadia Center filed companion testimony the same day. Together, the two testimonies cover Eversource’s multi-year rate plan, its proposed rewards and penalties, and its Targeted System Performance Plan.

As Acadia Center summarizes, the testimonies recommend that PURA reject Eversource’s proposed PBR approach in favor of the one PURA developed with stakeholders in its PBR proceedings. They also recommend changes to the formula that caps how much money Eversource can collect, which would lower that amount by millions of dollars.

Read the full testimony: This post is a high-level summary. For full details, read the testimony itself:

• Direct Testimony of Lindsay J. Griffin, Docket No. 26-05-10 (October 21, 2026)
• Direct Testimony of Will Taylor, Docket No. 26-05-10 (October 21, 2026)
• Acadia Center’s statement on the filing

All filings in the case are available on PURA’s website under Docket No. 26-05-10.

Upcoming opportunities to make your voice heard: PURA will hold four public comment hearings on Eversource’s application, three in person and one remote. Each hearing includes presentations from PURA, Eversource, and the Office of Consumer Counsel, followed by time for members of the public to speak.

If you are unable to attend the public hearings, you can still send in written comments for the official record. Here’s how:

1. Create an account or login into your account if you already have one:  https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/ElectronicFiling/DPUCElectronicRegistration.nsf/Main%20Area?OpenForm
2. Go this this webpage (if it does not direct you):  https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/ElectronicFiling/RevDPUCElectronicFiling.nsf/Start%20Area?OpenForm
3. Skip to Step 3 that says “add to a current docket filing”
4. Where it says “Docket Number” type in “26-05-10”
5. Click the drop down menu that says “Choose the Type of Filing”, then click “Correspondences”
6. On the next page, fill in your “entity” (the org you are submitting comments on behalf of, or your name)
7. Attach/upload the document you drafted
8. Click “Submit filing” and you should get a confirmation receipt!