Eversource attorneys urge board to remove late‑filing penalty after USPS delays; CL&P seeks correction for FERC reclassification

The Fairfield Board of Assessment Appeals heard appeals from Eversource representatives who asked the board to reverse late‑filing penalties and correct accounting classifications that the company says inflated town valuations.

Shue Jenkins, representing Neon Inc., which does business as Eversource Energy, told the panel the company delivered sealed, certified USPS envelopes to its Berlin mailroom on Oct. 30, 2025, four days before the Nov. 3 statutory filing deadline and asked that the $31,480 late‑filing penalty be removed. “Based on the evidence that was presented before you, I believe that the 2025 declaration of personal property was filed timely prior to the 11/03/2025 deadline,” Jenkins said, adding the packages were processed through the company postage machine and transferred to USPS custody the same afternoon.

The board reviewed certified‑mail receipts and an affidavit from USPS but pressed the appellant on whether the specific envelope addressed to Fairfield could be identified among 169 similar mailings. Chair Paula Cruzo said the exhibits and a postal‑service letter showing many of the envelopes were handled on Oct. 30 support the appellant’s position that the late delivery was caused by postal handling; she observed, “It seems pretty clear to me that it was a postal mistake.” The chair warned that the board’s role is to weigh the evidence and that a decision could still go either way.

A second Eversource appeal addressing Connecticut Light & Power’s valuation centered on accounting reclassification after a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission order (referred to in the record as Order 898). Company representatives said equipment formerly reported in a general‑plant FERC account (397/item 16) was reclassified into account 351/item 22 per the FERC directive, but the town’s roll shows both entries, effectively double‑counting the same assets and increasing the assessed value by about $412,000. Board members reviewed the field card and the FERC order citation presented by the appellant.

The board took both appeals under advisement and will present the materials to the full nine‑person panel for decision. The chair explained that if the board denies the appeals, the appellants retain the right to challenge the valuations in court.