All decisions, orders and authorizations of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons therefor, shall be filed and kept in the office of the authority and recorded in a book kept by it for that purpose and shall be public records. Said authority may, at any time, for cause shown, upon hearing had after notice to all parties in interest, rescind, reverse or alter any decision, order or authorization by it made. Written notice of all orders, decisions or authorizations issued by the authority shall be given to the company or person affected thereby, by personal service upon such company or person or by registered or certified mail, as the authority determines. Any final decision, order or authorization of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority in a contested case shall constitute a final decision for the purposes of chapter 54.
(1949 Rev., S. 5399; P.A. 75-486, S. 1, 69; P.A. 77-614, S. 162, 587, 610; P.A. 78-303, S. 85, 136; P.A. 80-482, S. 46, 348; P.A. 88-297, S. 14; P.A. 11-80, S. 1, 22.)
History: P.A. 75-486 replaced public utilities commission with public utilities control authority; P.A. 77-614 and P.A. 78-303 replaced public utilities control authority with division of public utility control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division an independent department and deleted reference to abolished department of business regulation; P.A. 88-297 substituted “records” for “documents”; P.A. 11-80 replaced “Department of Public Utility Control” with “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority” and added provision re final decision of authority in a contested case to constitute a final decision for purposes of chapter 54, effective July 1, 2011; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “department” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “authority”, effective July 1, 2011.
Right to render conditional judgment. 41 C. 355. Provision as to notice held to be merely directory. 78 C. 301. Trial before commission on appeal to it from local authorities is de novo; dismissal of appeal because of finding in another, distinct appeal improper. 84 C. 24. Appearance before commission waives want of notice of proceeding. Id.; Id., 40. No formal pleadings necessary before commission. 86 C. 36. All orders must find their justification in public convenience, necessity or safety. 89 C. 528. Court may take judicial notice of regulations of commission. 113 C. 416. Section confers right to reopen and rehear. Id., 503. Cited. 132 C. 514. When commission must make findings of facts. 145 C. 243. If commission can reverse its decision for due cause, then, on a new application for the same privilege, it can reach a different result. Id., 617. Cited. 162 C. 51; 165 C. 114; 166 C. 328. Legislative selection of the words “the company or person” instead of “the companies or persons” suggests that it intended that the written notice requirement be limited to giving such notice to the applicant if the order were issued in response to an application, or, in other cases, to the party to whom the order was directed. 168 C. 478. Cited. 169 C. 344; 170 C. 3; 219 C. 51; Id., 121; Id., 168. Authority lacked jurisdiction to resolve capacity clearing price dispute pursuant to section; interpretation that section was intended to confer jurisdiction on authority to unilaterally alter a decision approving the form of a contract after private parties have agreed to its terms rejected as constitutionally suspect; nothing in section confers jurisdiction on authority to exercise equitable power to reform contract to conform to true intent of the parties. 319 C. 367.
Cited. 40 CS 520.
Notes of Decisions
Norwich Land Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 363 A.2d 1386 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 16× “The plaintiff argues that, since notice was not given to the plaintiff in the requisite manner, *4 the appeal period provided by § 16-35 never began to run.”
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 591 A.2d 1231 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Ill CL&P next claims that the DPUC’s inconsistent treatment of its electric deferred fuel balance (DFB) was arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by evidence in the record, in violation of § 4-183 (g).”
Light Rigging Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 592 A.2d 386 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Following the plaintiffs’ appeal of the DPUC’s January 6, 1987 decision to the Superior Court, but prior to a hearing on the appeal, the DPUC, on its own motion pursuant to General Statutes § 16-9, 5 reopened the docket on Balkun’s application to allow the plaintiffs an…”
Archambault v. Water Pollution Control Auth. of Waterford, 523 A.2d 931 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 16× “The defendants claim that the trial court erred (1) in issuing a writ of mandamus based upon § 16-9 of the Waterford Code of Ordinances (code), (2) in finding that the plaintiffs have a clear legal right to the installation of sewers on Country Club Drive, and (3) in holding…”
Mazzola v. S. New England Tel. Co., 363 A.2d 170 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 7× “Determinations of the continuing validity of rates and services pursuant to §§ 16-9, 16-20 and 16-21 are similarly discretionary.”
Wheelabrator Lisbon, Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 931 A.2d 159 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Accordingly, the defendants argue, the department had jurisdiction over the 2004 petition under § 4-176 and General Statutes § 16-9. 17 We agree with the defendants that the department had jurisdiction over the 2004 petition.”
Vertex, Inc. v. City of Waterbury, 898 A.2d 178 (Conn. 2006).
“” Practice Book § 16-9 provides in relevant part: “The judicial authority shall decide all issues of law and all questions of law arising in the trial of any issue of fact .”
Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condo. Ass'n, 819 A.2d 844 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” Practice Book § 16-9. In this case, the court improperly left the issue of duty to the determination of the jury by instructing the jury to review the contracts of the defendants and to determine what duties arose from these contracts in relation to the defendants.”
City of New Haven v. United Illuminating Co., 362 A.2d 785 (Conn. 1975).
· cites it 3× “The plaintiffs have also assigned error in the court’s conclusion that § 16-9 of the General Statutes 6 did not require that written notice of the PUC’s approval of the transmission line be given to the plaintiffs.”
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 328 A.2d 695 (Conn. 1973).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes § 16-9 provides, in relevant part: “Said commission may, at any time, for cause shown, upon hearing had after notice to all parties in interest, rescind, reverse or alter any decision, order or authorization by it made.”
Town of Greenwich v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 592 A.2d 372 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Further, General Statutes § 16-9 provides in part that the DPUC “may, at any time, for cause shown, upon hearing had after notice to all parties in interest, rescind, reverse or alter any decision, order or authorization by it made.”
Ventura v. Town of E. Haven, 154 A.3d 1020 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“2d 844 (2003) (referring to General Statutes § 52-216 and Practice Book § 16-9 in holding that court decides all issues of law and submits questions of fact to jury); General Accident Ins.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.