Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

── Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ── Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut Date: April 28, 2026 Author: McDonald Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY v. PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY (SC 21122) McDonald, D’Auria, Ecker, Alexander and Bright, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (§ 4-166 (5) (A)), a “final decision” is “the agency determination in a contested case,” and a “contested case,” pursuant to § 4-166 (4), is “a proceeding . . . in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by state statute or regulation to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing or in which a hearing is in fact held . . . .” The plaintiff electric supplier, C Co., appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which had dismissed its administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), in connection with PURA’s investigation into C Co.’s response to an accident in the town of Norfolk. Downed electrical wires had entrapped the occupants of a vehicle that struck a utility pole owned and maintained by C Co., and, before first responders could rescue the occupants, they had to wait for approximately one hour until C Co.’s response specialist arrived at the scene and confirmed that certain electrical wires were de-energized. PURA thereafter issued a notice of proceeding, announcing that it was initiating an investigation into C Co.’s response to the accident. Following a hearing, at which C Co. participated, PURA issued its decision. PURA found that C Co.’s response to the accident had been imprudent and ordered C Co. to adopt a target response time of thirty minutes for certain life-threatening situations or “priority 1 events,” including situations in which live wires on vehicles prevent first responders from performing rescue efforts. In dismissing C Co.’s administrative appeal, the trial court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because PURA’s decision was not appealable under the provision (§ 4-183 (a)) of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act allowing appeals from final agency decisions insofar as PURA’s imprudence finding and target response time order were not determinations made in a “contested case” for purposes of § 4-166 (4). On appeal to this court, C Co. claimed that the trial court had incorrectly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over its administrative appeal. Held: The trial court properly dismissed C Co.’s administrative appeal from PURA’s decision rendered in connect