Eversource’s proposed 18% rate increase has drawn sharp criticism from state Attorney General officials, who argue the utility’s pricing demands far exceed what consumers can afford and what regulators should approve. The utility’s request represents one of the largest rate increase proposals in recent years for the Northeast utility provider, triggering immediate pushback from consumer advocates and state enforcement officials tasked with protecting ratepayers. When an Attorney General enters rate increase disputes, it signals that regulators and consumer protection authorities view the utility’s demands as excessive and potentially harmful to vulnerable populations who depend on reliable energy at reasonable costs.
Rate increases of this magnitude don’t happen in isolation—they typically follow years of utility investment claims, aging infrastructure arguments, and operational cost pressures that utilities present to regulators as justification. However, Attorneys General questioning such increases are essentially saying that the numbers don’t align with what customers should shoulder, or that the utility hasn’t adequately justified why such a dramatic increase is necessary. This tension between utility companies seeking revenue and state officials protecting consumers plays out constantly in regulatory hearings, but an 18% proposal is large enough to trigger intervention at the highest levels of state government.
Table of Contents
- Why Do Utilities Propose Large Rate Increases and When Do Attorneys General Object?
- The Practical Impact on Ratepayers and Why Consumer Harm Matters in Regulatory Disputes
- How Rate Increase Proposals Move Through Regulatory Review
- Comparing This Increase to Historical Precedent and Industry Norms
- Hidden Costs and Limitations Consumers Should Understand About Rate Disputes
- What Vulnerable Consumers Can Do When Utilities Request Large Rate Increases
- The Broader Pattern of Utilities Seeking Large Rate Increases and Regulatory Response
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Do Utilities Propose Large Rate Increases and When Do Attorneys General Object?
Utility companies justify major rate increases by citing investments in infrastructure modernization, grid reliability improvements, compliance with environmental regulations, and rising operational costs. Eversource, like other major utilities in the Northeast, operates extensive networks serving hundreds of thousands of customers, and these systems require constant maintenance and upgrades. However, the company’s argument that an 18% increase is necessary must clear a regulatory hurdle: utility commissions typically require utilities to prove that their proposed rates are both “just and reasonable” and necessary to provide safe, reliable service.
Attorneys General involve themselves when they believe a utility’s request crosses a line—either because the increase is unjustified, because it will create genuine hardship for vulnerable consumers, or because the utility hasn’t presented credible evidence supporting the full amount requested. In many cases, AGs challenge utilities by arguing that operational efficiency improvements, cost management, or lower-than-projected expenses should reduce the requested increase or that the utility’s profit margins are already adequate. An 18% increase gives consumer advocates and regulators plenty of room to argue that some portion should be rejected or deferred pending further review.
The Practical Impact on Ratepayers and Why Consumer Harm Matters in Regulatory Disputes
An 18% increase translates into real dollars for households already managing energy bills alongside housing, food, healthcare, and other essentials. For a customer currently paying $150 per month for electricity and heating, an 18% bump means an additional $27 monthly—or roughly $324 per year. For low-income households, renters in older buildings with poor insulation, and families using electric heat in cold climates, this kind of increase can mean choosing between paying utilities and paying for food or medicine. Attorneys General specifically highlight these impacts because regulators are supposed to consider whether a rate increase imposes unreasonable burdens.
One critical limitation in rate increase disputes is that consumers rarely appear at regulatory hearings to testify about their specific circumstances. Utilities present detailed financial models and testimony from executives; consumer advocates and Attorneys General typically present aggregate data about hardship. However, the stories matter: an elderly person on a fixed Social Security income, a family using electric heat in a region with brutal winters, a small business operating on thin margins—these represent the people bearing the actual cost of rate increases. Attorneys General raising objections are essentially arguing that the regulatory process should weigh these real-world consequences against the utility’s revenue demands.
How Rate Increase Proposals Move Through Regulatory Review
When Eversource (or any utility) files a rate increase request, it doesn’t go directly into effect. Instead, it enters a formal regulatory process overseen by the state Public Utilities Commission or equivalent authority, which typically includes discovery, testimony, and public hearings. The attorney General’s office, representing the state and its citizens’ interests, can intervene as a party to these proceedings.
This intervention is not frivolous objection—AGs typically hire expert witnesses, conduct independent financial analysis, and present detailed counterarguments about why the full increase shouldn’t be approved. A specific example of how this works: if Eversource claims $500 million in necessary investments but regulators or the AG’s office determine that only $350 million is adequately justified, the commission might approve a rate increase smaller than requested. The utility might appeal, the process could stretch over a year or more, and consumers may see rates adjusted incrementally as regulators work through the evidence. The Attorney General’s involvement typically extends this timeline and increases scrutiny, which can result in a lower final approved rate increase than the utility initially requested—though rarely eliminating the increase entirely.
Comparing This Increase to Historical Precedent and Industry Norms
A single-year 18% rate increase is substantial by historical standards. Most utilities see approvals in the range of 3% to 8% annually, with larger increases typically spread over multiple years or broken into phases. An 18% proposal suggests either that Eversource faces extraordinary circumstances requiring rapid revenue growth or that the company is testing how much the regulatory environment will tolerate.
Comparing to other utilities, some have sought increases in the 15%+ range following major disasters or environmental compliance mandates, but these are exceptions rather than the norm. The tradeoff utilities face is that requesting too large an increase invites intense regulatory scrutiny and Attorney General intervention, potentially resulting in a lower approved rate than the utility might achieve with a more modest proposal. However, utilities also have incentives to front-load requests because smaller approved increases in early years lock in baseline costs that future increases build upon. An Attorney General publicly objecting to an 18% increase is essentially calling out this strategy and signaling that regulators should be skeptical of the company’s numbers.
Hidden Costs and Limitations Consumers Should Understand About Rate Disputes
One critical limitation is that even when Attorneys General successfully argue for a reduced rate increase, consumers still typically see rates go up. The dispute isn’t usually about whether rates increase—it’s about how much. Consumers sometimes expect that an Attorney General’s objection means no rate increase will occur, but that’s rarely how it works in practice. Instead, an AG’s intervention might result in a 10% approved increase instead of the requested 18%, which still means higher bills but less dramatic than the original proposal.
Another limitation is that rate disputes typically don’t address structural problems that cause costs to rise in the first place. Environmental compliance mandates, aging infrastructure, rising labor and material costs, and decarbonization investments are real expenses that utilities must address. An Attorney General can negotiate how these costs are distributed among ratepayers and whether the utility should absorb some through efficiency improvements, but the underlying need for investment often doesn’t disappear. This means future rate increase requests are likely to follow, even if this particular 18% proposal is reduced.
What Vulnerable Consumers Can Do When Utilities Request Large Rate Increases
Low-income households, seniors, and disabled individuals should know that many utilities offer assistance programs—either through federal funding, state programs, or utility-specific initiatives—that can help manage increased bills. These might include weatherization assistance to reduce energy consumption, bill payment assistance, or discounted rates for vulnerable populations. When a rate increase is being considered, attending a public hearing or submitting written comments can create a record that regulators and Attorneys General can reference.
Consumer advocacy organizations often coordinate efforts to ensure that testimony about hardship reaches decision-makers. State energy assistance programs, often called LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) or similar names, can provide grants to help pay heating or cooling bills. These programs exist precisely because rate increases and seasonal energy costs create genuine hardship for people living paycheck to paycheck. When utility commissions approve rate increases, they often require utilities to maintain or expand assistance programs, so advocating for stronger consumer protections during rate disputes can improve access to these resources.
The Broader Pattern of Utilities Seeking Large Rate Increases and Regulatory Response
Eversource’s 18% rate increase proposal is part of a broader pattern: utilities across the country increasingly seek larger increases, citing infrastructure modernization and grid modernization for renewable energy integration. This creates recurring conflict between utilities, regulators, and consumer protection authorities.
State Attorneys General have become more active in challenging large increases, particularly when utilities’ profit margins remain substantial or when the company’s operational efficiency improvements don’t match the scale of requested rate growth. The Attorney General’s sharp disapproval of this proposal signals that the state’s consumer protection authority views Eversource’s request as overreaching—meaning the utility hasn’t adequately justified the full 18% or hasn’t demonstrated that alternatives like operational improvements would achieve the company’s stated goals with less impact on customers. This public stance by the AG often influences regulatory commissioners’ willingness to approve the full request, even though the final decision rests with the Public Utilities Commission or similar body.
- —
Frequently Asked Questions
If the Attorney General objects to Eversource’s rate increase, does that stop it from going into effect?
No. The AG’s role is to argue against the increase in regulatory proceedings, but the Public Utilities Commission makes the final decision. An AG’s objection can result in a lower approved increase, but rates typically still go up.
How long does a rate increase dispute usually take?
Regulatory proceedings typically last 6 to 18 months, depending on the complexity and whether utilities appeal decisions. This timeline means customers may not see the final outcome for over a year after a utility files its request.
Can I do anything as a customer to oppose a large rate increase?
Yes. Attending public hearings, submitting written comments, or joining organized consumer advocacy efforts creates a record that regulators consider. Individual voices matter in regulatory proceedings.
What happens if I can’t afford the higher rates?
Contact your utility about assistance programs, including low-income rate discounts, weatherization assistance, and bill payment help. Many utilities are required to offer these programs, particularly if a rate increase is approved.
Why do utilities keep requesting such large increases?
Infrastructure aging, environmental compliance costs, and grid modernization expenses are real. However, utilities also have incentives to request high amounts because regulators often approve partial amounts, locking in higher baseline costs for future years.
Does an 18% increase mean my bill will actually go up 18%?
Probably not the full amount. The 18% figure typically applies to the utility’s profit and cost recovery, which translates to lower percentage increases in actual customer bills, though 10-15% bill increases for individual customers are common outcomes of such proposals.