[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6153033,"mediaKeyId","5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d","parentId",5494935,"title","Town officials warn AWA governance plan hands control to outside authority majority","audioSeconds",4875,"startMs",17421000,"endMs",12546000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d&start=17421&end=12546","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d/thumbnail_17421000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6153033/Connecticut/Town-officials-warn-AWA-governance-plan-hands-control-to-outside-authority-majority","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153033-77445ffcf94d4a5011e4bfd8d394fc38/orig.mp4?Expires=1775268123&Signature=XSAFJHDaIE9m8SpBlR9LtGlLDCpNAirqpy3Tilrlw~XmAin7fdpYwkQkEWooFyZuB6Jgva0XgZo3zZtJeduMwXrj1mMGAAKiVApll7pubQ-217rkMYrLcOBtES~x7BvOZqO9HNpb~BgsCyHPN45LDcQHwNy0X4KWKJxfQcOU~OMf86PQrY7oFLu9ZS9aFMwm-zgY2NKPiXJ55b3HA0RAjYCptTo6HgbKVXlgLmuxU3VdhxGhNSZfaZs6PmUo7wp1--ToSWUOjrxxI--g0T-6Xh6KB~9kE81ykJg9Drolo-E-Yvr9vnZdYOkfA9ubKL50wZoc3HhtWRzm~VTw2SRlSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","PURA","date","2025-07-28T21:47:39Z","article","Town officials from New Canaan, Ridgefield and other Aquarion service communities told the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority hearing that the governance structure set out for the Aquarion Water Authority (AWA) hands meaningful control to outside appointees and risks weakening local oversight.

In testimony and public comment, First Selectman Diana Carlson of New Canaan said the AWA structure “eliminating PURA’s regulatory expertise and allowing the purchaser to essentially regulate itself is a recipe for disaster for our towns,” and argued a 60‑member representative policy board (RPB) would be impractical as a check on the authority board. First Selectman Rudy Marconi of Ridgefield testified the large RPB and proposed majority of Regional Water Authority (RWA) appointees would reduce residents’ ability to influence decisions that affect rates, capital projects and land use.

Why it matters: The enabling legislation (special act creating AWA, amended by Public Act 24‑1) assigns key powers to two bodies: an authority board that will make many operational and financial decisions, and a large RPB drawn from municipalities in the Aquarion service area. Several municipal officials said the statutory design—calling for a majority of RWA‑appointed authority members during transition—would give control to officials who are not residents of the communities they would govern, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and democratic accountability.

Testimony highlights and objections
- Carlson (First Selectman, New Canaan) told the panel she and constituents value Aquarion’s existing, long‑standing regulation by PURA and are worried that shifting final approval for rates, budgets and capital projects into an RPB that is “a 60‑person board” will produce less careful review than PURA’s processes. She said the RPB’s size and part‑time membership would limit its ability to scrutinize complex utility decisions.
- Marconi (First Selectman, Ridgefield) stressed the local service consequences, including for seniors and other rate‑sensitive households, and said the RWA/ AWA arrangement places decision‑making power at the authority level while the RPB would be positioned to only “rubber stamp” authority proposals.
- Mayor Michael Loretti of Shelton, in public comment, told the hearing his city has been well served by Aquarion and said he is “not sure” where the public benefit is in transferring control to a different governing structure.

How the proposed governance would work, as explained at the hearing
- The enabling legislation sets the AWA authority board and a 60‑member RPB of municipal representatives. During the initial period, members of the RWA authority would serve in AWA roles until AWA’s governing bodies are constituted.
- The RPB will have role(s) that include reviewing and approving certain large capital projects, bond issuances and land dispositions, and has committees such as finance and consumer affairs that will review technical materials before RPB consideration. Municipal officials told the hearing they are unclear how committee inputs and committee votes will translate into effective oversight for many technical or financial decisions.

Questions raised and requested changes
Municipal witnesses repeatedly asked for one or more of the following: clearer, written guarantees on how authority and RPB powers would be exercised; assurance that AWA’s governing majority would not be controlled by out‑of‑area appointees; or a near‑term legislative or structural commitment that the AWA board composition would more closely reflect the Aquarion service area. Witnesses said they would “take under advisement” legislative changes but could not commit to immediate fixes.

What was not decided
No final change to the enabling law or binding schedule for appointments was adopted at the hearing. Parties discussed the possibility of conditions or post‑approval commitments, but municipal witnesses said statutory change, not a nonbinding memorandum, would be the surest remedy.

Looking ahead
Municipal leaders asked PURA to weigh whether the statutory framework preserves adequate consumer protection and whether processes (interrogatories, OCA review, public hearings) can substitute for continued PURA oversight. Several witnesses asked for more concrete, written commitments on board composition or RPB mechanisms to prevent conflicts and ensure local input.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the meeting record as First Selectman Diana Carlson (New Canaan), First Selectman Rudy Marconi (Ridgefield) and Mayor Michael Loretti (Shelton).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Docket No. 25-04-03 - Evidentiary Hearing Day 2 - Aquarion Change of Control","oneSentenceSummary","Town officials from New Canaan, Ridgefield and other Aquarion service communities told the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority hearing that the governance structure set out for the Aquarion Water Authority (AWA) hands meaningful control to outside appointees and risks weakening local oversight.","taxTitle","Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, Departments and Agencies, Organizations, Executive, Connecticut","taxId",15761,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6153020,"PFAS remediation and capital program drive part of AWA's near‑term plans; RWA patent and technology spending noted",0,23011000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d&start=23011&end=23011","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d/thumbnail_23011000.jpg","/articles/6153020/Connecticut/PFAS-remediation-and-capital-program-drive-part-of-AWAs-nearterm-plans-RWA-patent-and-technology-spending-noted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153020-55a75405511d9f56574016ebff327d7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775268123&Signature=NQiRtg9QQot9iU00jPOzcybQYXBCUas2CGmwwDTGXlM-1tMvEfotKmp7Pzipq8ueL0tCZhKNkVJjpc16baTynNZ890SaVl7ChF3qqgdOfD9OkBDBNWTK1YyN2Cix2ZeMXVHeRBdOog2-qVAwaeXqLA72zZKMz2oDP5Tu3QPZSIzmUDfHpikM7sLbiMTBuXnHYS1kqV8W~Khj6nElqdDfoUL5hUVKX-SeYc7uhJA1vgMFjNk4fCuc4tBvlXHEXXfHHZvnFa8FvIzElSw~foSEOe0j1yO43esLtns5v8RRZWxpu9fEKqs~Wr79W6ZXA7svIf7e2gHrezZsC5nIA4dunA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Company witnesses and interveners at the PURA hearing discussed PFAS remediation and the capital program that the acquiring authority (AWA) intends to implement after acquisition.

Lede: Applicants said Aquarion will continue its capital program and that AWA plans substantial investments to address PFAS and other infrastructure needs; company witnesses identified projected technology spending of roughly $37–39 million through 2029 and said an RWA‑developed PFAS treatment patent is pending and under consideration.

Nut Graf: Both applicant testimony and interrogatory exhibits list PFAS and other treatment projects as necessary, regardless of ownership. Company witnesses said those projects are part of the 10‑year capital plan that drives the early rate modeling; municipal officials emphasized the projects’ public health importance and asked for clarity on funding and the patented technology’s availability and licensing.

What the record shows
- Planned PFAS projects: Interrogatory exhibits (referenced at the hearing as OCC 76 attachment 1) list Aquarion Connecticut PFAS projects and costs; company witnesses said the projects were necessary independent of any change in ownership.
- Technology spending: Company answers cited an estimated $37,000,000 of technology spending through 2029; witnesses noted an alternate figure in other exhibits near $39,000,000 and described the difference as timing (the parties agreed to provide updated exhibits clarifying the timing and totals).
- RWA patent: Company witnesses said RWA has a pending patent for an innovative PFAS treatment; they acknowledged the patent is still pending and that monetization/licensing details remain to be determined. Municipal officials asked whether proprietary ownership of a treatment method would limit AWA or towns’ ability to obtain lower‑cost treatment alternatives.

Public health and operational concerns
Municipal witnesses said Aquarion has historically invested in maintaining water quality and that towns rely on consistent, prompt system upgrades. Several municipal witnesses described experience with wellheads or local treatment issues and stressed the social equity implications: many lower‑income or senior households receive service through Aquarion mains and are sensitive to rate increases tied to treatment costs.

Company commitments and open questions
Applicants said the capital program for PFAS and other system needs is integrated into the 10‑year capital plan and that AWA will continue Aquarion’s capital planning, but they also acknowledged the need to provide additional documentation on timing and budget phasing (company witnesses agreed to provide late‑file information and clarified that some components—patent monetization, for example—remain under evaluation).

Ending: PURA will consider updated exhibits and may request further technical and financial detail on PFAS project phasing, treatment options and any intellectual property arrangements before finalizing findings on the transaction’s effect on service and rates.","Company witnesses told the PURA hearing that substantial capital investment and technology upgrades—including PFAS treatment projects—are planned for Aquarion’s system; witnesses also said RWA has a pending patent for an innovative PFAS treatment and that separate technology spending of roughly $37–$39 million through 2029 was in the exhibits.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6153024,"Towns press PURA on ‘pilot’ payments and potential loss of property tax revenue",390,14095000,14485000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d&start=14095&end=14485","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d/thumbnail_14095000.jpg","/articles/6153024/Connecticut/Towns-press-PURA-on-pilot-payments-and-potential-loss-of-property-tax-revenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153024-42c326474a87c3ca4b10b4c06317eaee/orig.mp4?Expires=1775268123&Signature=dF5I1cslUbvo8YCM-9ZGs614Ll~G~L7YsgsQ4IE638ef74yDF1ErjPBVhAqOn9ekCT56KB8SAKkCNEudpHkgq-mbWx8LzXDrWKMXrDBq2FenbmAPyGuwXTDM6ETNjDlEZ3UKQF8prp0HArPexAzZrEA4OpJ11-HV7nH3hD-sdkNHRJG6BoCyN0D-crvVrfMTcISNDSCg~dZg~AT3jBt~REG-s3AN7bX2SHpRgS7L76Obtw2ws5mgxreQeYLNYf4Tblyei-MacS~rIDuQtFQl4I5WrDhqgPh2aplgK0gSU~-vSSKSy7zHkvZKlAbzaMRbGV0g5dBOqVt9itIxGI30Fg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Municipal officials from New Canaan, Ridgefield and other Aquarion communities flagged payments in lieu of taxes (pilots) as another significant component of the acquisition's fiscal impact on towns.

Lede: Witnesses said AWA’s planned pilot would initially match Aquarion’s current tax payments but expressed concern that the pilot could be changed by future legislation or re‑interpretation, and that the pilot’s rules exclude taxes on future expansions, potentially reducing long‑term municipal revenue.

Nut Graf: Town officials said the statutory pilot guaranteed in the enabling legislation is not equivalent to current property tax treatment for expansions or revaluations. They urged clarity on how the pilot will be calculated, how it will be applied if a property changes value, and whether municipalities have an enforceable contractual remedy if payments fall.

What witnesses said
- New Canaan: First Selectman Diana Carlson said Aquarion’s recorded tax payments to New Canaan had ranged year to year and that the town cannot rely on a steady increase. She told the hearing towns “depend on Aquarion property tax payments to allow our towns to provide essential municipal services.”
- Ridgefield: First Selectman Rudy Marconi said municipalities depend on predictable property tax revenue streams; he described past Connecticut experience where legislative changes reduced municipal reimbursement schemes over time and called that history a cautionary example for relying on a statutory pilot instead of the tax rolls.

How pilots are described in filings and testimony
Applicants stated in filings and repeated at hearing that AWA would pay towns no less than current Aquarion tax receipts at closing and that the pilot is intended to preserve equivalent municipal receipts for existing property. Witnesses from the applicants noted statutory language excludes future increases tied to new buildings or revaluations from pilot protections in some instances (witnesses characterized future expansions and their tax consequences as outside the pilot formula).

Municipal requests and questions
Towns asked: Is the pilot guaranteed in a way municipalities can enforce (legally binding agreement, bond covenant, or other instrument)? What happens to pilot payments if later legislation changes municipal receipts? Will towns receive payment adjustments after revaluation or for new property acquired after closing? Municipal witnesses said they wanted a written, enforceable commitment or a legislative amendment guaranteeing that pilot levels would not be eroded.

Status and next steps
Applicants pointed to statutory language and said towns would receive at least the amounts Aquarion paid historically; municipal leaders asked for stronger enforceability. PURA will consider the record and late‑file exhibits and may request further documentation on pilot mechanics, the timing of payments, and whether contractual or enabling‑law protections are adequate to protect municipal revenue streams.

Ending: Municipal officials said they will continue to press for clarity and protections if the transaction proceeds; the hearing record shows further documentation and potential conditions will be required to resolve questions about long‑term municipal impact.","Municipal leaders at the PURA hearing warned that payments in lieu of taxes (pilots) written into the enabling legislation would not fully replace current property tax revenue and expressed concern that state or legislative changes in future could reduce those payments.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":79,"_43":102,"_45":102,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6153030,"Officials and witnesses spar over acquisition price, debt and timing of rate increases",2865000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d&start=2865&end=2865","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5494935-9fcd63d4b758104682d7a592cac43f5d/thumbnail_2865000.jpg","/articles/6153030/Connecticut/Officials-and-witnesses-spar-over-acquisition-price-debt-and-timing-of-rate-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153030-5f2fe85496a4e9ee218d36f4cb2f6519/orig.mp4?Expires=1775268123&Signature=nZKLTZkhNSIZd7SaQjQu5IQpKUKkx5RvEXnpZAYGirzKEe0JV17B1yi3hC3G-pejMNnHthImIAMOo3TiiwVPn3Bntp-bPkcD6k~BkyBmYMOTdlcpjHrLjMTsF2UWdMjOJcctP1pRJFMQ7TLwIhZrFK24m1XP-TVEjH8OSDeeElzT4DiIZWdXyg1Xg7LvewUok7E~mqVzpUz4w39jUgQuPhvmvufy1rL~uW7zYqcsvEjoccPq~lpIyYxrpjRpMj6EW6Uq6KYK9iq2oxBFOB~BBEFFmsgfmFe6gq~SDjhpVcNN87OFhcTo1kU5xNRmxy7u7Uk7MjjIoB0aGXch8OaPLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Panel witnesses and municipal officials at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority hearing gave extended testimony about how the proposed sale of Aquarion to the Aquarion Water Authority (AWA) would be financed and how that financing would affect customer rates.

Lede: Company witnesses said the acquisition will be financed primarily with debt and that early rate requests would be driven by planned capital investment; municipal officials and interveners pressed for details on the purchase price, issuance costs, and which costs will be recovered from ratepayers.

Nut graf: The parties discussed a base purchase price and sources/uses figures cited in application materials, estimated issuance and transaction costs, how acquisition‑related debt would be structured and allocated, and two competing frames for future rates: the applicants' model of long‑term savings from tax‑exempt financing versus town officials' concern about near‑term rate pressure.

Key numbers and claims presented at hearing
- Purchase price and sources/uses: Company witnesses and interrogatory exhibits discussed a base purchase price figure presented in filings near $2.25 billion and a sources‑and‑uses total on the order of $2.61 billion (transcript references to a 2.614‑billion total in the sources/uses table). Witnesses said there are conventional purchase‑price adjustments in the purchase and sale agreement.
- Acquisition and issuance costs: Counsel and witnesses discussed an estimated $50,000,000 for issuance and related transaction costs (underwriters’ fees, bond counsel, surety for debt reserve, other acquisition‑related costs).
- Net utility plant and fair value: Net utility plant for Aquarion plus Torrington was reported in testimony and interrogatories at about $1.765 billion (rounded), and company witnesses said a preliminary fair market value adjustment of around $300 million was estimated for an opening balance sheet, plus an intangible asset estimate (assembled workforce/reputation) on the order of ~100+ million (preliminary figures mentioned). Witnesses described preliminary accounting that would record a substantial portion of a premium as opening balance sheet fair‑value adjustments and intangible assets.
- Projected savings: The applicants’ presentation and witness testimony cited a model showing approximately $365,000,000 in projected savings over the first 10 years compared with continued investor‑owned ownership (company witness called that an updated exhibitable number derived from an M&A advisor). Witnesses noted the savings estimate depends on assumptions about tax‑exempt debt spreads and cost of capital.
- Rate projections and timing: Company witnesses said AWA’s first rate request would be ‘‘a little under $18,000,000’’ (testimony referencing OCC 42) and described it as representing roughly an 8.35% first‑year increase in their model; other filings referenced larger illustrative numbers (a $64,000,000 revenue deficiency figure was discussed as a comparative investor‑owned scenario and characterized in testimony as producing roughly a 31% impact in a hypothetical case). The company said a rate application would take at least six months to implement and that they do not expect to request acquisition relief in a first filing, saying the early rate requests were driven by a capital program.

Company position summarized
Applicants’ witnesses said: (a) the deal is financed to replace equity with lower‑cost tax‑exempt debt, producing modeled net savings across a 10‑year horizon; (b) acquisition debt and capital needs will both be funded from debt but the first rate filings are aimed at funding the capital program rather than direct recovery of the acquisition premium; and (c) the debt structure can be optimized so acquisition debt is repaid or amortized in particular ways that reduce near‑term rate pressure.

Municipal and consumer concerns
Municipal witnesses and public commenters repeatedly asked for clear accounting and timeline detail: how much of the acquisition debt will be embedded in rates, whether current rates can cover existing debt service without a new increase, and how the company will treat the excess of purchase price over net utility plant (how goodwill or premium will be treated for ratemaking). Ridgefield and New Canaan officials said even if long‑term savings exist on paper, the near‑term rate path shown in exhibits (multi‑year increases beginning with an immediate multi‑percent bump in the applicants’ model) is a source of deep concern for ratepayers on fixed incomes.

Uncertainties and evidence requests
Hearing participants requested late‑file exhibits and modeling clarifications: company witnesses agreed to provide additional late‑filed exhibits for a net present value calculation of the 10‑year projected savings, a breakout of the components of the $365,000,000 savings, and a version of the AWA 10‑year revenue model with a hypothetical removal of an approximately $500,000,000 component of the acquisition (the transcript records late‑file exhibit marks for several items).

What PURA will weigh
PURA will review the factual record (purchase price, fair value adjustments, sources/uses, debt structure and terms) and model sensitivity to interest rate spreads and rating assumptions; commissioners and interveners will assess whether projected savings are robust across plausible financing scenarios and whether initial and near‑term rate requests are justified by capital needs rather than acquisition premiums.

Ending: Parties agreed to submit additional exhibits and late‑file materials; municipal officials said those materials are essential for assessing whether the acquisition plan and the debt issuance strategy will protect ratepayers in the near term.","Witnesses at the PURA hearing described a purchase structure that replaces investor equity with tax‑exempt debt and funds capital spending; company witnesses said capital needs, not acquisition premium, will drive early rate requests while municipal officials warned customers could face sustained increases.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Town officials warn AWA governance plan hands control to outside authority majority

PFAS remediation and capital program drive part of AWA's near‑term plans; RWA patent and technology spending noted

Towns press PURA on ‘pilot’ payments and potential loss of property tax revenue

Officials and witnesses spar over acquisition price, debt and timing of rate increases