350 Conn. 660
Conn.2024Background
- United Illuminating (UI), an electric utility, appealed administrative decisions by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) after Tropical Storm Isaias in 2020.
- PURA found UI violated statutory emergency planning and storm recovery obligations and announced a reduction in UI’s authorized return on equity (ROE) and imposed fines over $1.2 million for storm performance violations.
- Additional fines of $61,000 were assessed for UI’s late reporting of two minor accidents post-storm, based on a daily penalty calculation.
- On appeal, UI challenged the ROE reduction, fines for storm performance violations, and the method/calculation of fines for accident reporting delays.
- During the appeal, PURA decided not to implement the planned ROE reduction, arguing the issue was now moot. UI pursued vacatur of the orders to prevent collateral consequences.
- The case reached the Connecticut Supreme Court, which addressed mootness, fine calculations, and sufficiency of the evidence for the penalties imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PURA's authority for ROE reduction | PURA lacked statutory authority; penalty procedure improper | Authority exists; penalty incentivizes compliance | Moot due to decision not to implement; vacatur of ROE-related orders granted |
| Fines for late reporting of minor accidents | Only a one-time $500 penalty per violation permissible | Each day of tardiness is a separate continuing violation, daily fines proper | Statute ambiguous; each missed monthly report is a separate offense, not daily; remand to recalculate fines |
| Fines for storm performance violations (make safe crews, communication) | Insufficient evidence UI violated standards; substantial compliance | Failures clearly established in record, including Bridgeport communications | Substantial evidence supports PURA’s findings; affirm fines for storm performance violations |
| Collateral consequences/mootness exceptions | Voluntary cessation/collateral consequences exceptions mean appeal isn’t moot | No reasonable likelihood of future prejudicial effect; agency entitled to deference | No applicable exception; claim moot but vacatur appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826 (2021) (sets out Connecticut’s mootness doctrine analysis and exceptions)
- CT Freedom Alliance, LLC v. Dept. of Education, 346 Conn. 1 (2023) (addresses deference to government actors and voluntary cessation doctrine)
- Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co., 227 Conn. 175 (1993) (guides interpretation of continuing violations for fines)
- Greenwich v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 219 Conn. 121 (1991) (remedial purpose of the public utilities statutory scheme)
- Thoronton v. Jacobs, 339 Conn. 495 (2021) (principles regarding vacatur when issues are mooted on appeal)