Hazardville Water asks PURA to restore nearly $1 million in plant additions or allow a deferral

Hazardville Water Company asked the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to reverse a draft decision that disallowed roughly $998,000 in plant additions, or in the alternative to authorize a deferral that would preserve the company’s right to seek recovery later.

Attorney Boen, counsel for Hazardville, told the panel the near-$1 million delta reflected items booked in the company’s filings (meters and other non-project fixed assets) and said independent auditors verified the expenditures. “We were alerted to the fact that it was perceived that there was this deficiency with regard to almost a million dollars,” Boen said, adding the company thought it had supported the amounts in late-file exhibits and record filings.

PURA commissioners pressed the company on whether it sought immediate entry into rate base or a deferral that would preserve the associated revenue requirement for later recovery. Chair Chairman Wheel noted the record is closed and said the draft decision flagged the inconsistency so parties could address it in exceptions; he invited the company to file correspondence pointing to specific record exhibits if that would clarify the discrepancy. Commissioners emphasized the regulatory distinction between GAAP-audited financial records and regulatory used-and-useful/prudence standards.

Alison McCory of the Office of Consumer Counsel said OCC supports the authority’s requirement that the company carry the burden of proof for plant additions and that audited financial statements are a starting point but do not substitute for regulatory evidence that plant is used, useful and prudent.

The company requested either reinstatement of the additions in the final decision or express language allowing a deferral and later recovery; commissioners indicated they would consider additional correspondence that points to existing record exhibits but said they could not accept new evidence. The authority plans to issue a final decision on May 1 and asked parties to supply citations in the record if they believe those materials resolve the perceived discrepancy.