AARP Hearing Center
.jpg?anchor=17,8&q=80&color=ffffffff&u=8wsalu&w=375 "Fall Movie Preview 2026")
AARP Connecticut Urges PURA to Reject Eversource Rate Increase Request
Ratepayers can voice their position by attending public hearings in November & December
Getty Images
AARP Connecticut urges the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to deny the proposal by Connecticut Light and Power Company d/b/a Eversource Energy 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.
Under the proposed proposal, Eversource Energy requests an approximate 18 percent increase in the electric distribution rate that would translate to a typical Connecticut residential customer using 700 kWh per month paying approximately $32.91 more each month, or nearly $400 a year.
More Ways to Benefit
- Related Benefit 1
- Related Benefit 2
- Related Benefit 3
- Related Benefit 4
- Related Benefit 5
Eversource Energy also seeks approval of a four-year Performance-Based Multi-Year Rate Plan ("PBMRP") that would establish annual formula-based adjustments and additional cost recovery mechanisms. With among the highest electricity rates in the nation, the filing additionally fast tracks automatic rate increases by going to a formula rate scheme that includes capital spending trackers and a new $4 a month 20-year surcharge.
“Another significant energy rate increase is the last thing Connecticut families need,” said John Erlingheuser, AARP Connecticut Senior Advocacy Director. “AARP urges PURA to reject this proposal. Older adults and people living on limited incomes are already making difficult choices as everyday costs rise. They should not be forced to stretch their budgets even further just to keep the lights on.”
AARP Connecticut encourages potentially impacted ratepayers to voice their position on the unreasonable and unacceptable rate increase. Connecticut consumers can provide comments at one of four public comment hearings PURA will hold to receive ratepayer feedback on the application by Eversource Energy.
- Monday, Nov. 9, at 5:30 p.m.: Central Connecticut State University, Torp Theatre, Lawrence J. Davidson Hall, 1615 Stanley Street, New Britain
- Monday, Nov. 16, at 5:30 p.m.: Mitchel College, The Red Barn, 629-A Montauk Ave., New London
- Monday, Nov. 23, at 5:30 p.m.: Western Connecticut State University, Ives Concert Hall, 181 White Street, Danbury
- Wednesday, Dec. 9, at noon: virtually via Zoom
AARP Connecticut’s submitted comments to PURA in opposition to the sizable rate increase request by Connecticut Light and Power Company d/b/a Eversource Energy follows:
Application of Connecticut Light and Power Company d/b/a Eversource Energy for Changes in Electric Distribution Rates
Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”) Docket No. 26-05-10
Comments of AARP Connecticut - October 29, 2026
AARP Connecticut respectfully submits these comments regarding the application of Connecticut Light and Power Company d/b/a Eversource Energy ("Eversource"). AARP represents nearly 600,000 members in Connecticut, many of whom are older adults living on fixed or limited incomes and are particularly vulnerable to rising utility costs. Reliable electric service is essential, but affordability is equally important. With among the highest electricity rates in the nation, our members already struggle to pay their utilities.
Eversource is seeking a substantial rate increase that AARP believes PURA should reject. Under the company’s proposal, a typical residential customer using 700 kWh per month would pay about $32.91 more each month, an increase of approximately 18 percent, or nearly $400 more per year.
The Company also seeks approval of an overly complex four-year Performance-Based Multi-Year Rate Plan ("PBMRP") that would establish annual formula-based adjustments and additional cost recovery mechanisms that appear similar to their formula rate proposal in New Hampshire. With among the highest electricity rates in the nation, the filing additionally fast tracks automatic rate increases by going to a formula rate scheme that includes capital spending trackers and a new $4 a month 20-year surcharge. This would further increase rates before anyone even turns on a light.
The formula rate proposal should be rejected
AARP does not oppose innovation in regulation. We recognize that alternative forms of regulation may be appropriate when they demonstrate a benefit to consumers. However, regulators should require persuasive evidence that proposed mechanisms will deliver better outcomes than traditional ratemaking. The burden of proof must rest with the utility. Its formula rate proposal would fast track rate increases and do nothing to address affordability while at the same time regulatory scrutiny would be limited.
AARP has actively participated in proceedings involving performance-based regulation, multiyear rate plans, formula rates, performance incentive metrics, and alternative regulatory proposals across the country. In Indiana, AARP submitted comments regarding performance-based regulation proposals before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. In that filing our position emphasized that performance metrics must be meaningful, transparent, and tied to outcomes and customers value. Utilities should not receive additional earnings opportunities for performance levels they are already expected to achieve. Consumer benefits must be quantified and enforceable.
Similarly, in the Arizona Public Service rate case, AARP advocated for customer-focused accountability, affordability protections, transparent metrics, and limits on automatic cost recovery mechanisms. We stressed that utilities should demonstrate actual improvements before receiving financial rewards and urged rejection of PBR/formula rates.
In New Hampshire, AARP participated in the Eversource rate increase case where formula rates were also proposed. AARP urged rejection of those formula rates in order to review capital expenditures and protect customers from excessive rate escalation occurring outside comprehensive rate cases.
These experiences demonstrate a consistent principle: multi-year plans can only serve the public interest when customer protections are as robust as the mechanisms that support utility revenues. Maryland recently scrapped similar plans and Illinois eliminated formula rates after a 10-year experiment that caused rates to soar and limited regulatory review.
Eversource argues that the proposed PBMRP would create incentives for efficiency, establish annual performance reviews, including customer dividends, earnings sharing, and performance metrics, while reducing the need for frequent rate cases. While these features are positive concepts, AARP believes PURA should scrutinize whether the proposal provides sufficient protection for residential customers.
First, the proposed plan would allow annual formula adjustments for operating expenses through a revenue-cap mechanism, while also providing a separate capital recovery mechanism and additional adjustment provisions. The cumulative impact of these mechanisms could expose customers to repeated increases over time.
Second, Eversource seeks authority for a four-year stay-out period between general rate cases. Although reduced litigation may provide administrative efficiencies, regulators should not sacrifice oversight in exchange for administrative convenience. The Authority must retain the ability to intervene promptly if costs, performance, or affordability outcomes materially diverge from expectations.
Third, the proposed performance incentive structure warrants careful review. AARP encourages PURA to ensure that performance incentive mechanisms reward only exceptional performance and that penalties are sufficiently meaningful to protect customers when utility performance falls short. The filing proposes various incentives and penalty frameworks associated with reliability and customer service measures. PURA should verify that the incentives are balanced and supported by unambiguous evidence of customer value.
Affordability Must Remain the Central Objective
The Company's own testimony repeatedly acknowledges the importance of customer affordability and rate stability. AARP agrees that affordability should be a primary regulatory objective. However, that objective must be reflected in the final outcome of this proceeding.
Connecticut residents, especially older adults on fixed incomes, continue to experience financial challenges. An increase that would amount to nearly $400 a year will place significant pressures on household budgets. Accordingly, PURA should carefully examine:
- The prudence of capital expenditures.
- The appropriateness of the requested return on equity.
- The necessity of proposed adjustment mechanisms.
- The structure of earnings-sharing provisions.
- The effectiveness of consumer dividend provisions.
- The cumulative effect of all proposed charges on residential customers.
We also question the claimed benefits of the securitization proposal to add a new $4 a month 20-year non-bypassable, non-changeable, non-reviewable surcharge to bills. AARP has found in other states like Oklahoma the promised benefits did not materialize.
The rate request should be rejected as well as the formula rate plan.
Respectfully submitted,
John Erlingheuser
AARP Connecticut Senior Director of Advocacy
AARP Membership
Join AARP for only $15 per year with automatic renewal. Get instant access to members-only products and hundreds of benefits, a free second membership, and a subscription to AARP The Magazine.
More From AARP
2026 State Legislative Session
Addresses Many of AARP Connecticut’s Priorities
Donna Powell to Receive 2026 Andrus Award for Community Service
AARP’s Annual Highest Volunteer Honor Recognizes Outstanding Volunteers Age 50-Plus
AARP Celebrates Caregivers with Free CT Events
AARP CT will host six free events offering resources and educational opportunities