THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY, SC 21122

Judicial District of New Britain

Administrative Appeal; General Statutes § 4-166 (4); Whether Proceeding After Which Defendant Found that Plaintiff's Emergency Response Was "Imprudent" Amounted to "Contested [C]ase"; Whether Trial Court Properly Determined That Hearing Not Required by General Statutes § 16-14 or § 16-18. In January, 2023, a volunteer fire department responded to a car that had collided with an electric utility pole with two "seriously injured" occupants entrapped. The plaintiff, The Connecticut Light & Power Company doing business as Eversource Energy (Eversource), took about an hour to confirm that the area was deenergized so that firefighters could began an extrication. The fire chief sent a letter to Eversource complaining that response was "completely unacceptable." Eversource filed mandatory accident reports with the defendant, the Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA), which issued a decision on August 9, 2023, concluding that Eversource's response was "imprudent" and that its report violated certain statutes and regulations, which "potentially subject[ed] [Eversource] to notice of violation." The August 9 decision required that Eversource have "a 30 minute target" for certain "priority 1 calls" and that it "review and revise its accident response procedures to ensure compliance." PURA also imposed additional reporting requirements on Eversource "to ensure [it] is fully informed of all accidents." Under a new docket number, PURA issued a notice of violation and assessment of civil penalty, and Eversource requested a hearing, after which PURA concluded that Eversource violated certain reporting requirements, assessing a $12,500 penalty. The parties agree that "the penalty decision" was conducted as a contested case that was not appealed. Eversource, however, appealed from PURA's earlier August 9, 2023 decision to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), claiming that there were errors during the investigation, that PURA improperly "changed the existing accident reporting regulations without notice, due process, or an evidentiary record," and that PURA erred by failing to conduct the proceedings as a "[c]ontested case" under General Statutes § 4-166 (4). It argued that PURA had "made it clear" that the August 9 "imprudent" finding would be used "in future proceedings as a presumptive fact," which improperly distorts the burden of proof. The trial court determined that the administrative proceeding was not a contested case and, consequently, dismissed Eversource's appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the UAPA. The court reasoned that a hearing was not required by either General Statutes § 16-18, which pertains to the relocation of a utility pole, or General Statutes § 16-14, which pertains to written complaints from "[a]ny town, city or borough." The court found that § 16-14 was "inapplicable" because the fire chief had complained to Eversource and not to PURA directly. The court also recognized that Eversource cited "no statutory authority" that required PURA to institute a contested case before directing a utility to shorten its emergency response time. Eversource appealed to the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c). Eversource argues that the trial court improperly found that the administrative proceeding was not a contested case because an "investigation was noticed and [a] hearing was conducted pursuant to multiple statutes," including § 16-18. Moreover, Eversource argues that the trial court erred in its analysis under § 16-14 by relying on the fact that the fire chief had complained to Eversource. Finally, it argues that the "imprudent" finding confirms the "contested nature" of the proceedings given that Eversource was "adjudged liable." The Office of Consumer Counsel, who intervened, and PURA argue that §§ 16-14 and 16-18 "are factually inapplicable" and that a hearing was not required to determine whether Eversource's response was imprudent.