Eversource pressed state officials on Thursday to reach a settlement with the utility that would allow for quicker recovery of deferred storm costs that have grown to nearly $1 billion.

The request came during a meeting before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority regarding Eversource’s efforts to recoup costs associated with responding to dozens of “catastrophic” storms — events that cost the company at least $4 million each — between 2018 and 2023.

The cost of the response to each storm, including everything from preparations to repairs to worker accommodations, is treated differently than smaller-storm costs that are recovered through base rates.

“At this point in time, we know [it] needs to be dealt with, and it’s going to come at a significant cost to customers,” said Doug Horton, Eversource’s vice president of distribution rates and regulatory requirements.

Gov. Ned Lamont signed legislation last year that would allow utility companies to recover those storm costs from customers through a process known as securitization — essentially bundling the total amount into bonds that can be paid back over a longer period of time at lower interest rates. Eversource estimates that the process will save customers $6 to $7 a month compared to a shorter pay-back period.

To date, however, PURA has yet to give utilities companies the go-ahead to proceed with securitization under the new law.

In order to do so, regulators must first determine how much of Eversource’s costs were prudently incurred and eligible for recovery from customers. Once that amount is determined, officials with the company say it will take a year or more to get final approval and issue the bonds.

Claire Coleman, who represents utility customers as the head of the Office of Consumer Counsel, said that while she is supportive of securitizing storm costs, she is also concerned that Eversource is putting pressure on PURA and other state agencies to rush their review of the company’s expenditures.

“We really need to strike a balance between resolving these issues expeditiously, which I agree is in the best interest of customers,” Coleman said. “But if we do it too expeditiously, we’ll short-change them.”

More than three-quarters of the costs included within Eversource’s request stem from the hiring of outside crews to repair lines and clear fallen trees following storms.

The biggest points of disagreement between Coleman’s agency and Eversource has to do with $330 million in carrying charges that the company says it is owed after waiting years to recover its storm costs. Those charges continue to accrue at roughly $8 million a month, the company says, and would bring the total amount owed by customers to more than $1.5 billion.

Coleman, however, argued that Eversource is not guaranteed recovery of those carrying charges until PURA is able to assess the prudency of its storm costs.

Adding to the pressure for a quick resolution of the question of how much Eversource is owed is the company’s plan to file a new rate case before PURA on June 1. Eversource’s Horton said that having clarity on the issue by then will allow recovery of those storm costs to be synchronized with the timing of new electric rates in mid-2027.

Horton also attributed the large backlog of unresolved storm costs to former PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, saying she repeatedly refused to rule on the company’s requests for payment and instead ordered them to settle the matter through a full rate case. Gillett stepped down in October, following a long and acrimonious dispute with the state’s utility companies and was replaced by four new commissioners.

“We’re starting from a premise that we want to securitize as much as possible, as quickly as we can,” he said.

In order to expedite that resolution, Eversource has proposed reaching a settlement with OCC, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and other state agencies over the amount of storm costs to be recovered. Any such settlement would have to be approved by PURA.

In a presentation submitted to PURA’s commissioners ahead of Thursday’s meeting, the company said a settlement would provide the “optimal path to lower costs and bill impacts for customers.” In her own letter responding to that presentation, however, Coleman said it was “inappropriate” to use the Thursday’s meeting — which was to discuss scheduling matters — to press for a settlement.

In addition, Coleman wrote that Eversource has yet to provide the state with an “updated” settlement proposal for the parties to discuss. (Coleman later declined to comment on settlement negotiations, citing confidentiality rules.)

One of the five PURA commissioners participating in Thursday’s meeting, Vice Chair David Arconti, endorsed the idea of a settlement as the quickest way of resolving the issue.

“I do think that’s the most optimal path,” Arconti said. “I would encourage everybody and all of the parties to keep working hard toward that best outcome.”

His comments came after PURA’s acting chairman, Tom Wiehl, said the agency is constrained by its current workload — which includes several active rate cases — and that its staff is working nights and weekends on the securitization issue.

“I don’t know that this agency’s active docket caseload has ever been more overloaded than it is right now,” Wiehl said.

Eversource’s last settlement before PURA resulted in the company agreeing to pay a $103 million penalty for its much-criticized response to Tropical Storm Isaias, which left hundreds of thousands of customers without power for nearly a week in 2020.