articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/230928-credit-faq-what-s-behind-our-recent-actions-on-investor-owned-utilities-in-connecticut-12856879.cshtml content esgSubNav
In This List

Credit FAQ: What's Behind Our Recent Actions On Investor-Owned Utilities In Connecticut?


Credit FAQ: China To Avert 'Lost Decade', With Bright Spots Ahead


Corporates: Could Interest Rate And Recession Risks Derail Corporate Credit?


Emerging Markets: Which EMs Are Better Positioned To Outperform In 2024?


Private Markets: How Long Can The Golden Age Of Private Credit Last?

Credit FAQ: What's Behind Our Recent Actions On Investor-Owned Utilities In Connecticut?

The regulatory framework is of critical importance when determining an investor-owned regulated utility's credit risk. Recent regulatory and legislative developments in Connecticut have been inconsistent with S&P Global Ratings' view of the state's regulatory framework for investor-owned utilities. The signing of Senate Bill 7 into law as well as recent less-than-credit-supportive utility rate case orders could lead to our downward reassessment of Connecticut's regulatory area.

These recent developments in Connecticut may be indicative of longer-term risks that could lead to a weakening of utility cash flow predictability and increasing regulatory lag, which we view as negative for credit quality. As such, we revised the outlooks on six of Connecticut's electric, gas, and water utilities to negative, reflecting these potentially higher risks. We expect to conclude our review of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction within the next 12 to 18 months following future rate case orders and our credit assessment of Connecticut's performance-based regulatory framework. Should we determine to revise downward our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction, it could result in downgrades for many of Connecticut's regulated utilities. Below, we address frequently asked questions about Connecticut's regulatory construct and how it affects our ratings on Connecticut-based utilities and their parent companies.

Frequently Asked Questions

How have we historically assessed Connecticut's regulatory framework?

Over the past three years, our view of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction has gradually diminished. In 2018, we revised upwards our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction to very credit supportive from more credit supportive, reflecting our opinion that various approved regulatory mechanisms would reduce regulatory lag, which is the timing difference between when costs are incurred and when regulators allow those costs to be fully recovered from ratepayers. These included multi-year rate plans and an electric system improvement charge. We expected that the implementation of these mechanisms would strengthen the recoverability of operating and capital costs, minimizing regulatory lag. However, in 2021 we revised downward our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction back to more credit supportive from very credit supportive. Our revision reflected our view of increasing political pressure in Connecticut that partially led to Connecticut's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) reversing a previously approved rate increase.

We view regulatory independence as one of the key attributes that underpins the credit quality of the utility industry and expect that utilities will operate under a regulatory construct that is sufficiently insulated from political intervention, even during periods of stress, thereby protecting the utility's credit quality. Furthermore, following political criticisms related to utility restoration efforts from a tropical storm, PURA assessed penalties and return on equity (ROE) reductions that were considerably larger than past actions, which in our view, also lowered the predictability of Connecticut's regulatory framework.


Earlier this year, as customer bills significantly increased because of rising commodity costs, which is beyond a utility's control, a Connecticut state representative introduced a bill to give the general assembly the legislative authority to approve regulatorily-authorized bill increases for gas and electric utilities. Though the bill did not advance out of the Joint Energy and Technology committee, we viewed it as further evidence of continuing political interference, which we assess as negative for credit quality.

In June 2023, Senate Bill 7 was signed into law, which gives PURA greater latitude in determining whether companies over earn, prohibits PURA from reauthorizing the electric system improvements charge, and allows PURA's discretion over the use of decoupling. Previously, decoupling was codified into state law. We believe this law decreases utilities' cash flow predictability and increases regulatory lag.

Recent rate orders this year for Aquarion Co. and The United Illuminating Co. (UI) also significantly deviated from our base case. These rate orders did not approve the multiyear rate plans filed, included material disallowances, penalties for UI, and below-average returns on equity. We also expect that these rate orders will increase regulatory lag for these utilities.

Rate case comparison
Aquarion Co. The United Illuminating Co.
Requested Authorized Requested Authorized
Rate increase $49.9 million -$2 million $130.6 million $23 million
Rate base $1.1 billion $992 million $1.5 billion $1.1 billion
Return on equity 10.35% 8.70% 10.20% 8.63%
Equity capitalization 53.06% 50.35% 52% 50%
Rate of return 7.50% 6.46% 7.47% 6.48%
Source: S&P CapitalIQ Pro.

We expect utilities in regulatory jurisdictions that we assess as more credit supportive to fully recover all operating and capital costs and to operate under a consistent framework that demonstrates regulatory and cash flow stability. Because we believe the regulatory construct in Connecticut may be weakening from this level, we revised the outlooks to negative on Connecticut Light & Power Co. (A/Negative/--), Yankee Gas Services Co. (A-/Negative/--), Aquarion Co. (A-/Negative/--), UI (A-/Negative/--), Connecticut Natural Gas Corp. (A/Negative/--), SJW Group (A-/Negative/--), Connecticut Water Service Inc. (A-/Negative/--), and The Connecticut Water Co. (A-/Negative/--).

We also revised the outlook on Southern Connecticut Gas Co. (A-/Developing/--) to developing from positive. Over the next 12 to 18 months, we expect to closely monitor further regulatory developments in Connecticut, including PURA's future rate case orders and how the performance-based regulatory framework is implemented.

What are the credit implications if S&P Global Ratings revises downward its assessment of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction?

Should we revise downward our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction, it would likely lead to modest downgrades for many of Connecticut's utilities. The downgrades would reflect higher business risk for Connecticut's utilities, incorporating a more challenging regulatory construct. We would expect regulatory lag to increase, cash flow predictability and stability to decrease, and for political interference to remain.

Currently, we assess all of Connecticut's electric, gas, and water utilities as core subsidiaries of their parents. However, should Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction become consistently more challenging than the parent's other regulated jurisdictions outside of Connecticut, we could determine that parental group support is limited for Connecticut's regulated utilities. As such, we could lower our assessment of parental group support for Connecticut's utilities, which could result in ratings downgrades.

Why did we revise our rating outlook on Eversource Energy to stable from positive?

Eversource's operations regulated by the PURA represent about 33% of its consolidated EBITDA. Although the regulatory constructs of its other regulatory jurisdictions have generally remained consistent, we believe the more challenging regulatory environment in Connecticut increases its business risk and pressures credit quality, decreasing the likelihood of an upgrade. The stable outlook on Eversource reflects our view that the company will sell its offshore wind assets and solely focus on its regulated transmission and distribution utility assets while maintaining funds from operations (FFO) to debt of 13%-14%.

Why is Avangrid Inc.'s outlook not affected by our evolving view of Connecticut's regulatory framework?

Although UI, Southern Connecticut Gas, and Connecticut Natural Gas account for about 25% of Avangrid's EBITDA, we continue to assess Avangrid as a core subsidiary of parent Iberdrola S.A. As such, the stable outlook on Avangrid is consistent with the stable outlook on parent, Iberdrola S.A.

Why do we have a developing outlook on Southern Connecticut Gas (SGC)?

Previously, we had a positive outlook on Southern Connecticut Gas due to its strengthening stand-alone financial measures. Because of the increasingly challenging environment in Connecticut, we revised the outlook to developing to reflect the possibility that we could either affirm, raise, or lower the ratings on SCG over the next 12 to 18 months. We could affirm our ratings on SCG and revise the outlook to stable if we maintain our current assessment of Connecticut's regulatory construct and SCG's stand-alone FFO to debt is below than 25%. We could also affirm our ratings on SCG and revise the outlook to stable if we revised downward our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory construct and SCG's stand-alone FFO to debt is consistently greater than 30%.

We could lower the ratings on SCG by one or more notches over the next 12 to 18 months if we revise downward our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory construct and SCG's FFO to debt is consistently below 30%. Lastly, we could raise our ratings on SCG over the next 12 to 18 months if we maintain our current assessment of Connecticut's regulatory construct, and SCG's FFO to debt is consistently greater than 25%.

Why were the outlooks on SJW Group (SJWG), Connecticut Water Service, Inc (CTWS), and Connecticut Water Co. revised to negative but the outlook on San Jose Water Co. (SJWC) was maintained at stable?

Connecticut Water accounts for about 25% of SJW Group's EBITDA. Should we revise downward our assessment of Connecticut's regulatory jurisdiction, it would likely increase business risk for Connecticut Water, CTWS, and SJWG, reflecting a weakening ability to effectively manage regulatory risk. Our negative outlooks on Connecticut Water, CTWS, and SJWG takes into account these risks.

SJWC is solely based in California and its operations are not affected by the regulatory challenges occurring in Connecticut. Furthermore, we assess the cumulative value of the insulating measures in place as sufficient to potentially rate SJWC up to two notches above SJWG's group credit profile. SJWC is currently rated only one-notch above the group credit profile, limited by its stand-alone credit profile. Accordingly, a one-notch downgrade to SJWG would not affect our issuer credit rating on SJWC.

Related Research

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst:Sloan Millman, CFA, FRM, New York + 1 (212) 438 2146;
Secondary Contacts:Omar El Gamal, CFA, Toronto +1 4165072523;
Beverly R Gantt, New York + 1 (212) 438 1696;
Gabe Grosberg, New York + 1 (212) 438 6043;

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at

Register with S&P Global Ratings

Register now to access exclusive content, events, tools, and more.

Go Back