Connecticut Court Rejects Utility’s Appeal of Order to Shorten Response to Emergencies

A Connecticut court has rejected the appeal of an electric utility following an investigation into its slow response an emergency request by a local fire department. Connecticut Light & Power Co., d/b/a Eversource Energy sought to appeal a decision by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority that found its response to a January 17, 2023 incident to be too slow.

The incident involved a car that struck a utility pole in Norfolk, Connecticut, resulting in electrical wires resting on the vehicle. As explained in the ruling:

  • When members of the Norfolk Volunteer Fire Department arrived at the accident scene, they observed two seriously injured people trapped inside the car and that the car was smoking.
  • Because the accident caused electrical wires to fall on to the victims’ car, emergency personnel were unable to immediately extract the injured persons from the car.
  • At approximately 2:20 p.m., Eversource received a request to “deenergize,” i.e., turn off the electricity to, the accident area.
  • By approximately 3:30 p.m., Eversource personnel had confirmed that the accident area had been deenergized and, shortly thereafter, Norfolk Volunteer Fire Department personnel began to extract the two individuals from the car.
  • On January 18, 2023, the Norfolk Fire Chief sent a letter to Eversource complaining that it had taken one hour for Eversource to confirm that the accident area had been deenergized.
  • In his letter to Eversource, the Norfolk Fire Chief stated that he found Eversource’s response time “completely unacceptable” and that Eversource’s response time may have endangered the seriously injured persons trapped in the car.

The PURA initiated an investigation into the incident. Quoting from the decision:

  • On January 30, 2023, PURA issued a Notice of Proceeding initiating an investigation of Eversource’s conduct regarding the accident.
  • On February 28, 2023, Eversource submitted, at PURA’s direction, a root cause analysis as part of the investigation.
  • PURA issued interrogatories as part of the investigation.
  • On April 6, 2023, PURA held a remote evidentiary hearing (the hearing) as part of the investigation.
  • Eversource participated in the hearing.
  • On August 9, 2023, PURA issued a decision resulting from the investigation and hearing.
  • The decision concluded that Eversource’s response to the accident was imprudent and may have violated Connecticut law.
  • PURA also ordered Eversource to undertake several measures intended to reduce the time it takes Eversource to respond to incidents similar to the accident.

Eversource sought to challenge the PURA decision by filing an appeal to the Tax and Administrative Appeals Division of Connecticut Superior Court. It argued that it had been deprived of the right to a contested hearing before the PURA rendered its decision. Judge Matthew J. Budzig rejected their arguments concluding:

  • Eversource points to no statutory authority requiring that PURA institute a contested case before ordering a regulated electric utility to shorten the time it takes to respond to emergency calls from emergency first responders in order to protect public safety.
  • Indeed the statute that PURA depends on to require Eversource to shorten its response time, General Statutes § 16-11, includes no contested case requirement.
  • [Pursuant to] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-11, the Authority order[ed] the Company to adopt a 30-Minute Target for Blue-Sky Priority 1 Calls.
  • The authority may order such reasonable improvements… or such changes in the manner of operation, as may be reasonably necessary in the public interest.
  • The general purposes of this section . . . are to assure to the state of Connecticut its full powers to regulate its public service companies, to increase the powers of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and to promote local control of the public service companies of this state, and said sections shall be so construed as to effectuate these purposes.
  • For all the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted. This matter is hereby dismissed.

Here is a copy of the complaint.

About Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 45 years of fire service experience and 35 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
x

Check Also

LA County Firefighter Alleges County Failed to Stop Harassment

A Los Angeles County firefighter has filed suit alleging the county’s failure to address the ongoing harassment by another firefighter violated state anti-discrimination laws. Guilherme Guimaraes filed suit in LA County Superior Court alleging three counts of violating the CA Fair Employment & Housing Act.

NJ Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Hostile Work Claim

The New Jersey Court of Appeals has ruled that an Asian-American firefighter who was clearly harassed on one-occasion by a ranking officer, was not subjected to a hostile work environment and thus does not have a right to recover from the fire department. Firefighter Timothy Burkhard filed suit against the City of Plainfield.