The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority held a technical meeting in Docket 250806 on the annual EV charging program review, during which the state’s investor‑owned utilities proposed a new incentive framework to comply with Public Act 25‑173 and described operational updates to managed‑charging and make‑ready efforts.

PURA staff attorney Arthur Lefebvre opened the session: “today's discussion is intended to be more informal and more of an open discussion that allows the authority to further refine the aspects of the program,” and asked roundtable participants to describe program changes and remaining questions.

The utilities said the new statute’s limits — a $20,000,000 statewide cap on spending for charging stations and customer wiring upgrades beginning Jan. 1, 2026, plus new income eligibility rules for the single‑family residential rebate — require immediate program design changes. The utilities proposed (a) shifting commercial incentives from a per‑site cap to a per‑port payment and (b) concentrating residential upfront support on customers who meet the new eligibility rule (those at or below 300% of the federal poverty level or who live in “concentrated poverty” census tracts). Eversource and United Illuminating said the combined effect of the cap and the eligibility rules would roughly halve the program budget available for incentives and that the proposed per‑port payments were set to reflect an approximately 50% reduction relative to historic funding levels.

Why it matters: Public Act 25‑173 (Senate Bill 4) changes both funding and eligibility for Connecticut’s EV charging incentives. Utilities and stakeholders told PURA they need clarity on whether applications received and/or awards issued before Dec. 31, 2025, will be treated as outside the cap, because the agencies must know which applications to accept, award and pay under the old rules to avoid interrupting projects or improperly committing limited 2026 funding.

Key program updates and proposals

• MUD pilot and enrollment: Rick Rosa, senior manager of EV programs for UI, summarized the multi‑unit dwelling (MUD) managed‑charging pilot launched in January and described three phases (baseline tenant telematics enrollment, EVSE network integration and full EVSE control at site hosts). Rosa said early results are limited but promising: “Even with the low participation early…results are suggesting that EV driving tenants that are enrolled in the program are consistently meeting that requirement of charging 80% off peak.” He reported four tenants enrolled in Eversource’s pilot and none yet in UI’s pilot.

• Site‑host incentive requests and motions: The utilities reported a motion seeking approval for a site‑host incentive tied to the MUD pilot — a one‑time $250 payment plus $50 per enrolled tenant, capped at $1,500 per site. The utilities said a prior ruling (motion 4) supports the site‑host incentive but that one filing (motion filed April 30) had not yet been ruled on at the time of the meeting.

• Extension and timing concerns: The EDCs filed a motion (motion 6) asking to extend the pilot through Aug. 1, 2026, to allow sufficient time to collect data; PURA granted that extension on July 28. Utilities described an operational “quiet period” they proposed to accept applications under the current rules through Oct. 31, 2025, and then process awards; they asked PURA for clarification about whether incentives awarded (or paid) after 2025 for applications submitted in 2025 would be excluded from the 2026 cap.

• Incentive framework changes: The utilities proposed per‑port commercial incentives and higher, targeted residential support for income‑eligible customers. For residential customers who meet the statute’s income or place‑based test, the utilities proposed a payment of up to $1,500 or 100% of project cost, whichever is lower. For customers who do not meet the income test the utilities proposed a $100 managed‑charging enrollment incentive (to capture load‑management benefits even when customers are ineligible for an upfront hardware rebate). The companies emphasized the proposed per‑port approach is intended to give better budget predictability under the $20 million cap and that the proposals represent an attempt to balance fewer dollars with port deployment goals.

• NSP corrective action plan and data reporting improvements: Eversource and UI reported steps to improve station serial‑number matching, API data configuration and uptime reporting for network service providers (NSPs) under the make‑ready program. The utilities said those controls raised Eversource’s serial match rate from about 68% to 90% and UI’s from about 71% to 87% over a 12‑month period.

• Uptime incentive: The utilities described prior work on uptime‑linked incentives and said the new statutory funding cadence reduced the near‑term feasibility of a delayed uptime payment; the companies recommended continued evaluation rather than immediate adoption of the uptime incentive as previously contemplated.

Stakeholder concerns raised at the roundtable

• Small MUDs and level‑1 charging: Jeremy Shulik of Clean Transportation Communities of Southern Connecticut urged revising program rules for small multifamily properties (two‑ to four‑unit buildings). He said landlords and stakeholders frequently find projects infeasible under the current structure because the residential incentive (historically modest) does not cover typical small MUD installation costs, and because some small MUDs lack separate meters. Shulik said local outreach identified that “41% of dwelling units in New Haven’s disadvantaged communities…are in small MUDs” and urged program changes to allow common‑meter installations, shared chargers and, in some cases, support for level‑1 smart outlets where they are the most affordable, practical solution.

• Managed‑charging enrollment and program design: ChargeScape, fleet and managed‑charging providers, and consumer advocates supported keeping an enrollment pathway and ongoing incentives for managed charging. The utilities proposed requiring 24 months of participation for customers who receive an upfront hardware/wiring rebate, and 12 months for customers who only receive the proposed $100 enrollment credit; utilities and providers said the ongoing monthly incentives (not the $100 sign‑up credit) are the primary driver of persistent participation.

• Telematics vs. networked EVSE: Stakeholders and utilities discussed two participation routes — direct EVSE (networked charger) integration and vehicle telematics (OEM‑provided). Panelists said both pathways expand access; telematics may offer long‑run opportunities for vehicle‑grid services but differs across OEMs and currently lacks uniform standards. Utilities emphasized the program must remain inclusive and technology‑agnostic while monitoring measurement accuracy and data access.

• Coordination with NEVI/DC fast charging: Commenters asked whether make‑ready program awards could be coordinated with U.S. DOT’s NEVI funding. Utilities noted NEVI and state make‑ready have differing federal requirements and reporting systems. Utilities said some applicants pursue NEVI instead of make‑ready when timelines or requirements favor one program.

Next steps and scheduling

PURA asked the EDCs to file a motion seeking clarification about the transition: specifically, whether the $20 million cap applies to incentives awarded or paid after 2025 for applications submitted in 2025, and what transitional procedures the utilities would need under each interpretation. PURA requested that utilities submit a motion with scenario details (including how a transition plan would work if awards are treated as 2025 commitments even if paid later). At the meeting close the authority restated scheduling milestones in the docket: briefs due Oct. 10, a proposed final decision expected Nov. 10, written exceptions due Nov. 25 and a final decision targeted for Dec. 10.

Ending

The technical session produced a mix of program updates, vendor‑integration detail and policy questions centered on how to implement Public Act 25‑173 without interrupting projects already underway. Utilities and stakeholders agreed on the need for clarity from PURA on the transition dates and requested that the EDCs file the requested clarification motion promptly so the authority can rule in time to guide the program’s end‑of‑year processing.