Southern Connecticut Gas asks PURA to adopt old record and allow limited updates as remand scheduling conference opens

Southern Connecticut Gas Company asked the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on Friday to incorporate the full evidentiary record from the original rate dockets into the remand proceedings and permit narrow updates to certain revenue‑requirement items, arguing that the remand should not require a full re‑litigation of the case.

The request came during a scheduling conference for docket 25113, where interim Commissioner Holly Cheeseman presided. Company counsel Brendan Vaughn and presenter Jacob Herurwitz told the panel the company sought three things on remand: that all evidence from docket 23102 be moved into the record, that all parties be treated equally (including allowing the company to file an affirmative case rather than only rebuttal), and that the procedural schedule be revised to avoid duplicative hearings and holiday conflicts.

"We were seeking three things. This first one is we would like all of the evidence that we submitted in docket 23102 to be moved into the record of these proceedings," Jacob Herurwitz said during the presentation. He added that the company proposed limiting updates to a short list of material issues — rate base, plant additions, cost of capital, depreciation and related drivers — rather than reopening the entire case.

Why it matters: The remand followed a judicial finding that some of PURA’s prior procedural steps prejudiced the company’s rights. Southern Connecticut Gas told the authority that redoing the record from scratch would be costly and inefficient: the company said employees logged more than 23,000 hours on the initial proceedings and that external costs exceeded $7.5 million. The company also said the prior decision reduced its combined revenues by roughly $35 million a year and that the firms have been deprived of about $70 million total — a claim company counsel said underscored the need for timely resolution and possible retroactive relief.

Parties broadly agreed to one procedural point: combining the prior dockets’ records. "I think it would make sense to combine them because ... there's a ton of cross‑pollination in the evidence and transcript," Vaughan said. Several interveners, including the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC), the Attorney General's representative and EOE did not object to rolling the prior evidentiary materials into the remand dockets.

But the proceeding exposed a sharp legal disagreement over whether the remand allows new evidence. Andrew Manikowsky, OCC’s legal director, urged caution and cited Connecticut administrative law distinctions, telling the authority that the court’s remand arose under a statute (4‑183J) that typically does not permit the admission of new evidence unless the court ordered it. "If the authority does allow new evidence to be introduced, then those 4‑177C rights — the right to cross‑examine and present witnesses — would be implicated," Manikowsky said, warning that admitting new material would require parties to re‑retain experts and expend additional resources.

Several intervenors echoed that concern: Consumer Council representative Claire Coin warned that accepting new spending since the close of the earlier record would effectively create a new rate case rather than a limited remand. Company counsel said the proposal was for limited, targeted updates — not an open-ended re‑start — to ensure the rates set by PURA are "just and reasonable" for the period in which the companies must now operate.

Commissioner Cheeseman said the Authority would provide clarity: parties were directed to submit written comments on the notice of admitted evidence and to identify prior motions or rulings (including protective orders) they believe should be carried into the remand dockets. The commissioners did not make a final decision during the conference; Cheeseman adjourned the scheduling conference and said the Authority will issue further instructions on whether and how new evidence will be permitted.

What happens next: Parties must file written comments on the notice of admitted evidence and state which prior motions or confidential exhibits should carry forward. The Authority will issue further direction on the scope of the remand and any hearing schedule adjustments.