NEW HAVEN, Conn. — At an evidentiary hearing before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on Oct. 30, 2025, GB 2 New Haven LLC described a premature failure of a station service transformer that prevents the plant from using its natural‑gas compression equipment and outlined options to restore the facility’s contractual dual‑fuel capability.

Michael Bruno, executive vice president of strategy and corporate development for GB 2 New Haven, said the transformer ‘‘failed without any notice’’ during normal standby operation and that a replacement or repair will be necessary to restore the gas interconnection. Bruno said the company ‘‘intends to repair or replace the damaged equipment in order to restore the dual fuel capability of the facility’’ unless the authority directs otherwise.

Why it matters: the transformer powers the plant’s fuel‑gas compressor auxiliaries (lights, heaters, lube oil pumps and compressor motors). Without it GB 2 cannot compress gas to the pressures required to run the engines on natural gas, a capability that the company said is part of its obligations under the contract‑for‑differences and PURA orders.

What the company described on the record

• Premature failure and useful life: GB 2 witnesses said a typical transformer useful life is about 20–25 years and characterized this unit’s failure as premature; the plant’s transformer was roughly 13 years old according to commissioner questions. Rob Reynolds, plant manager, testified that the failure would likely be a candidate for replacement if internal damage proves extensive.

• Repair vs. replacement: GB 2 presented estimates for both on‑site repair (rewind/repair vendors) and new‑unit replacement (multiple manufacturers). The company told the authority that repair options carry uncertainty — including the possibility that a vendor cannot complete the full scope after disassembly — and that a full replacement “is likely to bring the longest‑term value.”

• Oil and environmental handling: GB 2 representatives said internal transformer oil is contaminated by the failure and ‘‘would not be fit for service’’; the company agreed it will not reuse that oil and must contract for replacement oil and proper disposal through an approved facility. OCC examiners highlighted vendor quotes that had initially assumed reuse and requested corrected quotes and disposal costs.

• Lead times and market conditions: GB 2 said transformer lead times are long, custom and have lengthened recently; commissioners noted potential price escalation related to federal tariff and supply‑chain pressures.

• Temporary alternatives: the company said temporary diesel generator solutions would likely require a Title V air permit modification and multiple large rental generators (an 8‑MW equivalent load was discussed), and that the logistical, fuel and permitting costs would make diesel generation an impractical sustained workaround.

Document requests and evidentiary steps

Throughout cross‑examination OCC and PURA staff requested documentary support. The authority instructed GB 2 to file several late exhibits by Nov. 7, 2025, including: (a) vendor emails and quotes supporting repair and new‑transformer cost estimates and any related internal analyses (late file 5), (b) vendor quotes and cost estimates for replacement transformer oil and oil disposal (late file 6), (c) internal photos and any core inspection exhibits already in the record (read‑in / late file as appropriate), and (d) a narrative and backup about whether the transformer failure needed to be reported to PURA (parties agreed the company will address legal reporting obligations in the briefs due Nov. 17). The authority also asked for any further supporting documentation that would explain the basis for repair vs. replace decisions.

Accounting and rate treatment issues

GB 2 told the authority that, if replacement is approved, the useful life assumed for the transformer would be used for depreciation; the company noted that if component life exceeds the remaining CFD term, depreciation could be set to the contract end date. GB 2 also said transformers are typically below the insurer deductible, so insurance might not cover the loss; the company said it would follow accounting and the authority’s guidance for capital treatment if the plant proceeds with replacement.

Quotes on the record

Michael Bruno (GB 2), describing the company’s position: "unless directed otherwise, the company intends to repair or replace the damaged equipment in order to restore the dual fuel capability of the facility." Rob Reynolds (plant manager) described lead times as "very long" and said repair vendors’ assessments can require re‑routing the equipment to other shops, which raises costs and uncertainty.

Next steps

The authority set a schedule for late‑filed exhibits (due Nov. 7 at 4 p.m.), allowed parties to request a late‑file hearing on Nov. 12, and set briefs due Nov. 17 and a proposed final decision date of Dec. 2, 2025. The company agreed to submit the requested vendor documentation, oil cost quotes and internal photos in the late files. The authority indicated it will evaluate those materials, the company's explanations and legal submissions before ruling on rate treatment or capital recovery.