The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the state’s energy sector. Under Connecticut General Statutes §16-247a, PURA is mandated to ensure the provision of reliable, safe, and affordable energy services. This includes the authority to approve rates, service standards, and infrastructure investments for electric distribution companies. When considering the financial implications of a proposed capital project by an electric utility, such as the installation of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), PURA must balance the potential benefits of the project (e.g., improved grid efficiency, enhanced customer information) against its costs. The statute requires PURA to consider whether the project is in the public interest, which encompasses economic feasibility and impact on customer rates. A prudent cost recovery mechanism, often through a rate adjustment clause or a dedicated rate filing, is necessary. The approval process typically involves a detailed review of the utility’s business case, cost-benefit analysis, and projected impact on customer bills. PURA’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating that the recovery of these costs is just and reasonable and aligns with the state’s energy policy objectives, including promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy integration. The Authority’s decisions are subject to judicial review, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates and due process.

The question probes the understanding of risk treatment options within the framework of ISO/IEC 27005:2018, specifically focusing on the context of a Connecticut-based energy utility. Risk treatment involves selecting and implementing measures to modify risk. The primary options are risk avoidance, risk reduction, risk sharing, and risk acceptance. Risk avoidance entails ceasing the activity that gives rise to the risk. Risk reduction involves implementing controls to decrease the likelihood or impact of the risk. Risk sharing, or transfer, involves distributing a portion of the risk to another party, such as through insurance or contractual agreements. Risk acceptance means acknowledging the risk and making a conscious decision not to take action. In the scenario presented, the energy utility is experiencing increased cybersecurity threats targeting its distributed energy resources (DERs). Implementing enhanced intrusion detection systems and access control protocols directly addresses the likelihood and impact of these threats, thereby reducing the risk. This aligns with the concept of risk reduction. While other options might be considered in different contexts, the direct application of security controls to mitigate identified threats is the most fitting risk treatment strategy described.

The question revolves around the application of risk treatment options within the framework of ISO/IEC 27005:2018. Specifically, it probes the understanding of how to select the most appropriate treatment when residual risk remains unacceptable after initial treatments have been applied. In such a scenario, the organization must revisit its risk assessment and treatment planning. The fundamental principle is that if the residual risk is still higher than the acceptable risk level, further action is required. This necessitates a re-evaluation of the existing controls, the risk scenario, and potentially the identification of new or enhanced controls. The process involves either applying additional controls to further reduce the likelihood or impact, or, in some cases, accepting the risk if further reduction is not feasible or cost-effective, provided this acceptance is formally documented and approved. However, the prompt specifically asks about addressing *unacceptable* residual risk, implying a need for action rather than passive acceptance without further mitigation. Therefore, the most logical and compliant step is to re-evaluate the risk and apply additional or alternative controls. This aligns with the iterative nature of risk management as described in ISO/IEC 27005:2018, where continuous monitoring and review are essential. The other options represent either premature acceptance of risk, an incorrect application of risk sharing, or a misunderstanding of the treatment hierarchy.

The Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA) in Connecticut, established under Connecticut General Statutes §16-1, is the primary regulatory body overseeing public utilities. Its mandate includes ensuring that utility services are provided efficiently, reliably, and at reasonable rates. PURA’s authority extends to setting service standards, approving rate structures, and overseeing mergers and acquisitions within the utility sector. For instance, when a utility proposes a rate increase, PURA conducts a formal rate case, reviewing the utility’s operating expenses, capital investments, and projected revenue requirements to determine a just and reasonable rate of return. This process often involves extensive public hearings and expert testimony, aligning with the statutory requirement for PURA to act in the public interest. PURA also plays a crucial role in implementing state energy policy, including promoting renewable energy development and energy efficiency programs, as mandated by legislation such as the Renewable Energy Investment Act (Public Act 05-1, Section 24). The authority’s decisions are subject to judicial review in Connecticut Superior Court.

The scenario describes a situation where a renewable energy project in Connecticut is facing potential delays due to an unforeseen environmental impact identified during the permitting process. The core issue is how to navigate this challenge within the framework of Connecticut’s energy and environmental regulations. Connecticut’s energy policy, as outlined in statutes like the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Title 16, Chapter 293, emphasizes the promotion of renewable energy and the protection of the environment. When a project’s environmental impact is discovered to be more significant than initially assessed, it often triggers a need for re-evaluation and potentially revised mitigation strategies. This falls under the purview of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), which oversees both energy development and environmental protection. The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) mandates that state agencies consider the environmental implications of proposed actions. If new information emerges that suggests a substantial adverse environmental effect, CEPA’s provisions, particularly those related to the Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) process, may require further review or amendment. This review would involve assessing the nature and extent of the impact, exploring alternative solutions or mitigation measures, and potentially modifying the project’s design or operational plans. The goal is to ensure compliance with environmental standards while still facilitating the development of needed energy resources. The most appropriate action in such a case is to engage with the regulatory bodies, specifically DEEP, to formally address the newly identified environmental concerns and work collaboratively towards a compliant and sustainable solution, which may involve submitting revised documentation or conducting further studies.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) oversees the state’s energy policy and programs. A key component of this is the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), established under Connecticut General Statutes \(\S\) 16-245a. The RPS mandates that a certain percentage of electricity sold by electric distribution companies in Connecticut must come from eligible renewable energy sources. These percentages increase over time. The law specifies different categories of renewable energy credits (RECs), often referred to as Class I, Class II, and Class III, each with specific eligibility criteria and timelines. Class I generally includes newer, more environmentally beneficial technologies like solar photovoltaic and wind. Class II typically includes existing hydropower and biomass, and Class III covers sources like landfill gas and waste-to-energy. The statute also allows for adjustments and reviews of the RPS, and the CT DEEP promulgates regulations, such as the Renewable Energy Regulations, to implement these provisions. The question assesses the understanding of how the RPS mechanism functions within Connecticut’s regulatory framework, specifically focusing on the role of RECs and the oversight by CT DEEP. The core concept is the state’s mandate for renewable energy procurement, driven by the RPS and implemented through the REC system.

The scenario describes a situation where a municipal electric utility in Connecticut, regulated by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), is considering a significant capital investment in upgrading its grid infrastructure to accommodate a substantial increase in distributed solar generation. The utility must assess the financial implications of this upgrade, specifically focusing on how to recover the costs from its customer base while adhering to Connecticut’s regulatory framework for cost recovery. Connecticut General Statutes Section 16-19ss, concerning the “smart grid investment” and PURA’s authority to approve such investments, is a key piece of legislation. The question probes the most appropriate method for cost recovery in this context, considering the regulatory environment. The utility cannot simply pass costs directly to customers without PURA approval, nor can it absorb the costs without impacting its financial stability. A securitization mechanism, often used for stranded costs or major infrastructure investments, allows the utility to issue bonds backed by future customer revenue streams, potentially lowering the immediate cost of capital and spreading the recovery over a longer period. This approach requires PURA’s explicit approval and a regulatory mechanism to ensure timely recovery. Other options like a general rate case might be too slow or not specific enough for a targeted infrastructure investment, and a special assessment could face legal challenges regarding its fairness and proportionality. Therefore, a securitization of the approved grid upgrade costs, facilitated by a PURA-approved regulatory asset or surcharge, represents the most aligned and practical approach within Connecticut’s energy regulatory landscape for such a large-scale, forward-looking investment.

The question concerns the application of risk treatment options within the framework of ISO/IEC 27005:2018. Specifically, it focuses on the scenario where a risk is identified as having an unacceptable residual risk level after existing controls have been applied. In such situations, the organization must select a new risk treatment option to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The options provided are: risk retention, risk acceptance, risk avoidance, and risk reduction. Risk retention involves acknowledging and accepting the risk without taking any action to modify it, typically when the potential impact is low or the cost of treatment outweighs the benefit. Risk acceptance is a formal decision by management to acknowledge a risk and continue with the current activities, often when the residual risk is within the organization’s defined risk appetite. Risk avoidance means discontinuing the activity that gives rise to the risk. Risk reduction, also known as risk mitigation, involves implementing controls or taking actions to decrease the likelihood or impact of the risk. Given that the residual risk is unacceptable, the organization must take action to lower it. This directly aligns with the definition of risk reduction. While risk avoidance might also lower the risk, it implies ceasing the activity altogether, which may not be feasible or desirable. Risk retention and acceptance are only appropriate when the residual risk is already acceptable. Therefore, the most appropriate course of action when residual risk is unacceptable is to implement measures to reduce it.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) oversees the state’s energy policy and regulation, including the integration of renewable energy sources and the promotion of energy efficiency. The state has established specific programs and mandates aimed at decarbonizing its energy sector and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A key component of Connecticut’s energy strategy involves the establishment of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and the implementation of programs like the Renewable Energy Investment Fund (REIF) to support renewable energy development. The state’s energy laws and regulations, such as those pertaining to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), dictate the minimum percentage of electricity that must be generated from eligible renewable sources. Compliance with these mandates is often achieved through the purchase of RECs or direct investment in qualifying projects. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) plays a crucial role in regulating utility companies and approving energy-related programs and investments, ensuring they align with the state’s policy objectives and provide benefits to Connecticut ratepayers. The concept of “societal benefits” in energy policy refers to broader economic, environmental, and social advantages that extend beyond the direct cost of electricity, such as job creation, pollution reduction, and energy security. CT DEEP’s initiatives, including those funded by REIF, are designed to maximize these societal benefits while advancing the state’s clean energy goals.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) plays a crucial role in overseeing the state’s energy landscape. Specifically, under Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Chapter 446c, the CT DEEP is mandated to implement programs that promote energy efficiency and conservation. The Renewable Energy Investment Fund (REIF), established and administered by the CT DEEP through its Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy, is a primary mechanism for achieving these goals. The REIF supports a wide array of initiatives, including solar photovoltaic installations, wind energy projects, and energy efficiency upgrades for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The fund’s purpose is to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, aligning with Connecticut’s climate action plans and energy policy objectives. The specific allocation and utilization of REIF funds are subject to periodic review and regulatory guidance issued by the CT DEEP, ensuring alignment with legislative intent and evolving energy market conditions. The statutes provide the framework for the fund’s operation, while the CT DEEP’s regulatory authority allows for the detailed implementation and management of its programs.

The scenario presented involves a public utility in Connecticut that is seeking to recover costs associated with the decommissioning of a nuclear power facility. In Connecticut, the process for a utility to recover such costs is governed by specific statutes and regulatory frameworks. The primary mechanism for approving rate adjustments and cost recovery for utilities is through the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). PURA conducts a formal rate case proceeding, often initiated by the utility filing a petition or application. During this proceeding, the utility must demonstrate the prudency and reasonableness of the incurred costs, and how these costs align with statutory requirements for decommissioning fund management and recovery. PURA then reviews the evidence, including financial analyses, engineering assessments, and legal arguments, to determine whether the proposed cost recovery mechanism and amounts are in the public interest and comply with relevant legislation, such as Connecticut General Statutes §16-247f which addresses nuclear decommissioning cost recovery. The Authority will consider factors such as the actual decommissioning expenses, the adequacy of existing decommissioning funds, and the impact on customer rates. A decision by PURA, whether to approve, deny, or modify the requested cost recovery, is a formal regulatory action. Therefore, the most appropriate regulatory body to address this cost recovery request is PURA through a formal rate proceeding.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the state’s energy market. In Connecticut, the Public Act 13-298, An Act Concerning Renewable Energy, established the Connecticut Green Bank (formerly the Connecticut Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority) to foster investment in clean energy projects. This act, along with subsequent legislation and PURA’s ongoing regulatory proceedings, aims to meet state renewable energy goals. When evaluating the effectiveness of programs designed to accelerate distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) deployment, PURA considers various metrics. One critical aspect is the impact on ratepayers, specifically how program costs are recovered and whether they lead to equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. PURA’s decisions on rate recovery mechanisms, such as energy efficiency charges or securitization, are informed by analyses of program costs, operational efficiencies, and the overall economic impact on the state’s utility customers. The authority also monitors the progress towards mandated renewable energy targets and the contribution of distributed generation to grid reliability and stability. Therefore, assessing the success of these programs involves a multifaceted review of financial, operational, and policy objectives, with a strong emphasis on cost-effectiveness and customer impact, as guided by Connecticut’s energy statutes and PURA’s regulatory framework.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has established specific guidelines for the recovery of costs associated with renewable energy projects, particularly those developed under the state’s Renewable Energy Investment Fund (REIF). Section 16-243g of the Connecticut General Statutes outlines the framework for competitive solicitations and the approval of power purchase agreements for qualifying renewable energy sources. When PURA reviews a proposed power purchase agreement for a solar photovoltaic project seeking REIF support, it evaluates the project’s economic viability and alignment with state policy objectives. This includes assessing the reasonableness of the contracted energy price, the project’s expected operational performance, and the overall impact on ratepayers. PURA’s approval process is designed to ensure that ratepayers receive the benefits of renewable energy generation at a cost that is just and reasonable. The authority’s decision-making hinges on a thorough analysis of the projected revenue streams, operational expenses, and the avoided costs of traditional energy sources, all within the context of Connecticut’s decarbonization goals. The ultimate aim is to facilitate the development of renewable energy while safeguarding consumer interests by ensuring that the costs recovered through approved rates are prudently incurred and demonstrably beneficial.

The scenario describes a situation where a renewable energy project in Connecticut is facing potential delays due to an unforeseen environmental impact related to a protected species. The project developer is seeking to understand the most appropriate regulatory pathway to address this issue while minimizing project disruption. Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 16-50p outlines the process for siting and certifying energy facilities, including requirements for environmental review. When a project encounters an issue that was not fully anticipated during the initial application and approval process, and this issue significantly impacts environmental compliance or the project’s feasibility, a formal amendment or modification to the existing Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (CECPN) is typically required. This process ensures that the new environmental considerations are thoroughly reviewed by the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) and other relevant state agencies, and that any necessary mitigation measures are incorporated into the project’s operational plan. Simply proceeding without addressing the new impact would violate the terms of the CECPN and potentially lead to enforcement actions. A new application would be overly burdensome and unnecessary if the core project remains the same, only encountering a new environmental factor. Informal consultation, while important, does not substitute for the formal amendment process required for significant changes or unforeseen impacts that affect compliance with the CECPN. Therefore, seeking an amendment to the CECPN is the legally mandated and procedurally correct approach in Connecticut for this situation.

The Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA) in Connecticut, established under Connecticut General Statutes §16-1 et seq., is the primary state agency responsible for regulating public utilities, including electric generation, transmission, and distribution. PURA’s authority extends to ensuring just and reasonable rates, adequate service, and promoting the public interest in energy matters. When considering the integration of distributed energy resources (DERs), such as rooftop solar or battery storage, PURA plays a crucial role in developing policies and regulations that facilitate their participation in the grid. This includes establishing interconnection standards, net metering policies, and programs that incentivize DER deployment. Section 16-243g of the Connecticut General Statutes, for instance, outlines requirements for net metering for customer-owned renewable energy sources, demonstrating PURA’s direct involvement in shaping the market for these resources. Furthermore, PURA oversees the implementation of state energy policy directives, such as those aimed at increasing renewable energy generation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated by legislation like the Comprehensive Energy Strategy. The authority to approve utility rate structures, capital investments, and operational plans also gives PURA significant influence over how new technologies and distributed resources are integrated into the existing infrastructure. Therefore, PURA’s regulatory framework is central to managing the evolving energy landscape in Connecticut, particularly concerning the incorporation of DERs.

The Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA) in Connecticut, established under Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 16-1 et seq., is the primary regulatory body for public utilities. PURA’s authority extends to setting rates, approving mergers, ensuring service quality, and overseeing the development of energy infrastructure. When considering the acquisition of a significant portion of a regulated electric distribution company’s assets by a non-utility entity, PURA’s approval is mandatory. This is because such a transaction could fundamentally alter the operational control and strategic direction of a critical infrastructure provider, potentially impacting reliability, affordability, and the state’s energy policy objectives, such as renewable energy integration and grid modernization. CGS § 16-11(a)(4) grants PURA the power to approve or disapprove any sale, lease, or transfer of any public utility’s franchise or assets. The review process involves assessing the financial stability of the acquiring entity, the impact on existing service contracts and rates, the potential for anticompetitive effects, and the alignment with Connecticut’s long-term energy planning goals, often articulated in the state’s Comprehensive Energy Strategy. The rationale behind this stringent oversight is to protect the public interest by ensuring that essential utility services remain reliable and affordable, even when ownership structures change. Without PURA’s explicit approval, such an asset transfer would be legally invalid and would not confer ownership rights over the regulated utility’s infrastructure.

The scenario describes a situation where a renewable energy project in Connecticut, aiming to utilize a significant portion of its generated capacity for direct customer sales under a retail access program, encounters a regulatory hurdle. The project developer is seeking to comply with Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 16-243f, which governs the allocation of capacity for retail customers. Specifically, the law mandates that a certain percentage of a generating facility’s output must be made available to retail customers within the state. When a developer proposes a capacity allocation that falls below this statutory minimum, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) would typically review the proposal against the established legal framework. The core of the issue is ensuring that the project’s operational plan aligns with the state’s policy objectives, which often prioritize ensuring adequate supply for Connecticut’s retail consumers, especially from new renewable sources. The legal obligation stems from the state’s legislative intent to foster renewable energy development while simultaneously safeguarding the interests of its ratepayers by ensuring access to this cleaner power. Therefore, the DEEP’s action would be to ensure adherence to the minimum allocation percentage stipulated by CGS § 16-243f, which is a fundamental requirement for such projects operating under Connecticut’s deregulated energy market structure. This involves a direct application of the statute’s capacity reservation mandate.

The scenario describes a situation where a distributed energy resource (DER) owner in Connecticut is seeking to interconnect with the electric grid. Connecticut’s energy laws and regulations, particularly those overseen by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and implemented through the state’s electric distribution companies (EDCs), govern this process. A key aspect of interconnection is the determination of the appropriate interconnection study process. For DERs exceeding a certain capacity threshold, a more detailed interconnection study is typically required to assess the potential impacts on the grid’s reliability and stability. The Connecticut Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP), often adapted by states, outline these requirements. The question focuses on identifying the point at which a more comprehensive, rather than a simplified, study is mandated. While specific capacity thresholds can evolve with regulatory updates, generally, larger or more complex DERs necessitate a full system impact study and potentially a facility study to ensure safe and reliable grid operation. This involves evaluating the DER’s potential to cause adverse effects on the transmission system, including voltage deviations, short circuit levels, and protection system coordination. The absence of a specific capacity mentioned in the question necessitates understanding the general principles of tiered interconnection study requirements based on the size and potential impact of the proposed generation. The core concept is that as the size and complexity of a DER increase, so does the rigor of the interconnection study required by Connecticut regulations to ensure grid integrity.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the regulation of public utilities in the state, including energy providers. Under Connecticut General Statutes §16-247f, PURA is empowered to approve the establishment of competitive energy markets and to set the framework for their operation. This statute, along with subsequent regulations such as those found in the Connecticut Regulations, Title 16, Chapter 283, governs the transition to and ongoing management of competitive energy supply in Connecticut. The Public Act 05-1, Section 15, specifically addresses the restructuring of the electric distribution companies to separate generation and delivery services, a key element in fostering competition. When considering the regulatory oversight of a new entrant seeking to offer competitive electricity supply services in Connecticut, the primary statutory authority and regulatory body responsible for approving such market participation and establishing the operational rules is PURA, acting within the legislative framework provided by the Connecticut General Assembly. This involves ensuring compliance with market rules, consumer protection measures, and financial viability requirements.

In Connecticut, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the state’s energy sector. A key aspect of PURA’s mandate is ensuring fair competition and preventing market manipulation, particularly in the wholesale electricity markets. Section 16-19 of the Connecticut General Statutes grants PURA broad authority to investigate and address practices that may be detrimental to the public interest in the provision of utility services, including electricity. When a utility company, such as Eversource Energy, proposes a new rate structure or a significant operational change that could affect market dynamics, PURA conducts a thorough review. This review often involves analyzing the potential impact on consumer prices, service reliability, and the competitive landscape. For instance, if a utility proposes to recover costs associated with a new transmission project through a specific rate rider, PURA will scrutinize the project’s necessity, cost-effectiveness, and how its recovery mechanism aligns with state energy policy objectives, such as promoting renewable energy or grid modernization. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s decisions are guided by principles of reasonableness, prudence, and ensuring that rates are just and equitable. The process typically involves public hearings, expert testimony, and detailed financial and operational analyses. The ultimate goal is to balance the financial health of the utility with the protection of ratepayers and the advancement of the state’s energy goals, as articulated in legislation like the Comprehensive Energy Strategy.

The question concerns the application of Connecticut’s energy efficiency program mandates, specifically focusing on the energy efficiency portfolio standards (EEPS) and the role of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) in their oversight. Connecticut General Statutes Section 16-245m establishes the framework for energy efficiency and demand reduction programs. This statute requires electric distribution companies and gas distribution companies to offer programs that achieve specific energy savings targets. PURA is mandated to review and approve these programs, ensuring they are cost-effective and meet the statutory goals. The statute also specifies that PURA shall consider the total societal benefits, including environmental impacts and economic development, when evaluating program proposals. The concept of “cost-effectiveness” in this context typically involves a comparison of program costs against the value of energy saved, often using methodologies like the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test or the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) test, which are standard in energy efficiency program evaluation. The statute emphasizes that the programs must be designed to achieve a net benefit for ratepayers. Therefore, PURA’s approval process involves a rigorous assessment of whether proposed programs, as submitted by the utilities, demonstrate this net benefit and align with the overarching goals of energy conservation and economic development within Connecticut.

The question probes the understanding of the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority’s (PURA) role in approving electric distribution companies’ (EDCs) Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) and the statutory basis for such approval. Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) §16-1(a)(4) defines “integrated resource plan” as a plan submitted by an electric distribution company that includes a forecast of the company’s electricity supply needs, a strategy for meeting those needs, and a plan for meeting the state’s renewable energy goals. CGS §16-245m(b) mandates that each electric distribution company shall submit an IRP to PURA for approval. This approval process involves evaluating the plan against various criteria, including cost-effectiveness, reliability, environmental impact, and alignment with state energy policy objectives, such as those outlined in CGS §16a-35k concerning renewable energy targets. PURA’s approval is a critical step, ensuring that the EDC’s long-term resource strategy is consistent with state mandates and public interest. Without PURA approval, an EDC cannot implement its IRP. The focus is on the statutory requirement for PURA’s formal authorization of the IRP, which is a fundamental aspect of energy planning and regulation in Connecticut.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the state’s energy markets. Section 16-243g of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended, addresses the establishment and operation of competitive energy markets, including provisions for the procurement of electricity supply. This statute mandates that PURA establish procedures for the procurement of standard offer service, which is a default service provided to customers who do not select an alternative supplier. The statute also requires PURA to ensure that such procurement processes are competitive and designed to achieve cost-effective rates for consumers. Furthermore, PURA’s authority extends to approving rates and charges for public service companies, ensuring they are just and reasonable. In the context of renewable energy, PURA is also responsible for implementing programs mandated by state law, such as the Renewable Energy Investment Fund (REIF) and various solar initiatives, to promote the development and deployment of clean energy technologies within Connecticut. The statute governing PURA’s powers in this area, particularly concerning standard offer procurement, emphasizes the need for transparency, efficiency, and the ultimate benefit of Connecticut ratepayers. The specific mechanisms for conducting these procurements, including the timing, volume, and bidding parameters, are detailed in regulations promulgated by PURA, often in response to legislative directives. The overarching goal is to balance market competition with consumer protection and the state’s energy policy objectives.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) oversees the state’s energy policies and regulations, aiming to promote clean energy, energy efficiency, and reliable energy infrastructure. A key aspect of this is the regulation of wholesale electricity markets and the integration of renewable energy sources, particularly under programs like the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) market. The state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS) mandate that a certain percentage of electricity sold in Connecticut must come from renewable sources. These RECs are tradable commodities generated by renewable energy facilities. The value of a REC is influenced by supply and demand within the state’s market, which is shaped by regulatory requirements, facility performance, and the overall energy landscape. The question asks about the primary regulatory body responsible for managing the REC program in Connecticut, which directly impacts the financial viability and deployment of renewable energy projects within the state. This involves understanding the administrative structure of energy regulation in Connecticut.

The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) oversees the state’s energy policy and regulatory framework, including initiatives aimed at promoting renewable energy and grid modernization. Public Act 13-247, as amended, established the Connecticut Green Bank (formerly the Connecticut Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority) to facilitate private investment in clean energy projects. The Green Bank’s mandate includes developing financing mechanisms and programs to reduce the cost of clean energy for consumers and businesses. One such mechanism is the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, which allows property owners to finance energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements through voluntary assessments on their property tax bills. While the Green Bank is a quasi-public agency, its operations and the programs it administers, like PACE, are integral to Connecticut’s energy law, particularly concerning financing and deployment of clean energy technologies. The question probes the understanding of the Green Bank’s role and its relationship with state energy policy and financing tools. The Green Bank’s primary function is to leverage private capital for clean energy projects, acting as a catalyst rather than a direct energy provider or a regulator of wholesale energy markets. Its focus is on financial innovation and market development to accelerate the adoption of clean energy solutions within Connecticut.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) plays a crucial role in overseeing the state’s energy sector. One of its key responsibilities is to ensure that utility companies provide safe, reliable, and affordable service to consumers. This often involves reviewing and approving major infrastructure projects and rate adjustments. For instance, PURA’s approval process for a significant capital investment by a utility, such as a substantial upgrade to the transmission grid or the construction of a new renewable energy facility, is governed by specific statutory and regulatory frameworks. These frameworks typically require utilities to demonstrate the prudence and necessity of the proposed expenditure, its impact on customer rates, and its alignment with the state’s energy policy goals, including those related to decarbonization and grid modernization. The authority’s decisions are informed by public input, expert testimony, and detailed financial and technical analyses. In Connecticut, the enabling legislation and subsequent regulations, such as those found in Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 283 and related PURA regulations, outline the procedural requirements and substantive criteria for such approvals. The concept of “least-cost procurement” is also a guiding principle, meaning utilities must demonstrate that they are acquiring energy resources and infrastructure in the most cost-effective manner for ratepayers, considering both short-term and long-term costs and benefits. This includes evaluating various technology options and market mechanisms. Therefore, when a utility proposes a large capital expenditure, PURA must meticulously assess whether the proposed project meets these stringent criteria and serves the public interest.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has established regulations concerning the interconnection of distributed generation systems with the state’s electric grid. Specifically, PURA’s regulations, such as those found within the Connecticut General Statutes and associated administrative regulations (e.g., Section 16-243h-1 et seq.), govern the process and technical requirements for such interconnections. These regulations aim to ensure grid reliability, safety, and fair cost allocation. When a customer proposes to install a solar photovoltaic system with a capacity of 10 megawatts, it typically falls under a category that requires a more detailed review than smaller residential systems. This is due to the potential impact on the distribution system’s voltage, protection schemes, and overall stability. The interconnection process often involves studies to assess these impacts. For systems of this size, the relevant regulatory framework in Connecticut would mandate a formal interconnection application, followed by a system impact study and potentially a facilities study, depending on the findings of the initial study. The applicant is usually responsible for the costs associated with these studies. The final interconnection agreement will outline the technical requirements, operational procedures, and any necessary grid upgrades to be performed by the utility, with costs potentially borne by the applicant. The specific tariff or rider governing these interconnections, often approved by PURA, details the steps and responsibilities. The concept of “net metering” also plays a role in the economic aspects for smaller systems, but for larger systems, the compensation mechanisms might differ and be subject to specific PURA-approved rate structures or power purchase agreements. The regulatory approach in Connecticut prioritizes a thorough technical assessment for larger systems to maintain grid integrity.

In Connecticut, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the state’s energy market. PURA’s authority extends to approving utility rate structures and ensuring the reliability and affordability of energy services for consumers. The state’s energy policy, as articulated in legislation like the Comprehensive Energy Strategy, aims to promote clean energy, energy efficiency, and grid modernization. When a utility proposes a change in its rate structure, such as a shift towards time-of-use (TOU) pricing or the incorporation of demand charges, PURA conducts a formal rate case proceeding. This process involves detailed analysis of the utility’s proposed rates, costs, and service standards, often with extensive input from consumer advocates, environmental groups, and other stakeholders. PURA’s decision-making process is guided by statutory mandates to ensure just and reasonable rates, promote economic development, and achieve state energy policy goals. The approval of a new rate structure requires a thorough examination of its potential impact on different customer classes, including residential, commercial, and industrial users, and must demonstrate that the rates are not unduly discriminatory. The legal framework for these proceedings is primarily established in Connecticut General Statutes, particularly those related to public utilities and their regulation.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) plays a pivotal role in overseeing the state’s energy sector. PURA’s authority extends to approving rate adjustments for electric distribution companies, ensuring fair pricing and adequate service for consumers. When an electric distribution company, such as Eversource or United Illuminating, proposes a change in its rates, it must submit a formal request, often termed a rate case, to PURA. This submission details the company’s operating expenses, capital investments, and desired rate of return. PURA then conducts a thorough review, which typically involves public hearings, expert testimony, and the examination of detailed financial and operational data. The Authority’s decision is based on whether the proposed rates are just and reasonable, ensuring that the company can maintain its infrastructure and provide reliable service while not imposing an undue burden on ratepayers. This process is governed by statutes such as Connecticut General Statutes §16-19, which outlines the procedures for rate adjustments and PURA’s responsibilities in ensuring that rates are sufficient, reasonable, and equitable. The outcome of this review can lead to an approved rate increase, a decrease, or a modification of the original proposal, all aimed at balancing the financial needs of the utility with the interests of the public.

The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) oversees the state’s energy markets. In Connecticut, PURA has implemented regulations that govern how electric distribution companies (EDCs) procure power for their customers, particularly through the competitive bidding process for Standard Offer service. The Standard Offer is a mechanism designed to ensure reliable and reasonably priced electricity for customers who do not choose an alternative supplier. PURA’s regulations, often found within its various docket proceedings and codified in the Connecticut General Statutes, establish specific requirements for the solicitation, evaluation, and award of Standard Offer contracts. These regulations aim to foster competition while safeguarding consumer interests. The concept of “least cost procurement” is central to these regulations, requiring EDCs to demonstrate that their chosen Standard Offer power sources are indeed the most economical and reliable options available, considering factors beyond just the immediate price, such as contract duration, fuel source diversity, and potential price volatility. When evaluating bids, PURA scrutinizes the proposals to ensure they align with the state’s energy policy objectives, which may include promoting renewable energy, ensuring grid reliability, and achieving cost-effectiveness for ratepayers. The process is designed to be transparent and fair to all potential suppliers.