Eversource has appealed a Connecticut regulatory decision rejecting hundreds of millions of dollars in interest associated with past storm costs, according to an October 15 statement from Attorney General William Tong.
Tong said his office would defend the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s decision. His statement describes the disputed amount as more than $300 million in accumulated interest and says the utility filed its appeal Thursday.
The distinction between storm-restoration spending and carrying costs matters for customers. The former pays for recovery work; the latter concerns the cost of financing spending before it is recovered. The dispute described by state officials concerns those additional costs, rather than whether restoration workers should be paid.
The case follows Eversource’s December 2025 application concerning storms from 2018 through 2023. In a July 29 account of PURA’s final decision in docket 25-12-13, the Office of Consumer Counsel said regulators disallowed about $500 million of a $1.36 billion request, including $103.5 million from the principal balance and $396.7 million in carrying costs. Those figures describe the earlier regulatory decision, not a newly approved surcharge.
The consumer counsel’s July statement also said the proceeding accounted for costs already recovered through other mechanisms. Its explanation distinguished reductions to the underlying request from offsets for previous recovery, which should not be added together as though each were a new charge.
An appeal is a request for judicial review. The sources reviewed do not establish that a court has reversed PURA, approved additional recovery or set an amount or date for a new customer charge. Customers should not interpret the filing alone as a change to their next bill.
Eversource’s appeal papers and a current company explanation of their legal grounds were not independently obtained. An investor filing found during research returned an access error. The state officials’ objections are their positions in the dispute, not a court finding against the utility.