OPINION: They Want to Put a Price Tag on Survival. We Can’t Let Them.
An Open Letter to PURA regarding Docket 25-06-28—and why every Bloomfield resident needs to send this email today.
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief
Right now, in a quiet administrative docket in New Britain, the State of Connecticut is deciding whether or not to strip away life-saving protections for our most vulnerable neighbors.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) is currently accepting correspondence in Docket No. 25-06-28. They are evaluating the "Medical Hardship" protection—the law that prevents utility companies from shutting off your power if you have a serious illness.
The utility companies and certain lobbyists are pushing to restrict these protections. They want to know if they can exclude "mental health" from the definition of serious illness. They want to know if they can "means-test" your survival—checking your bank account before deciding if your life-sustaining equipment stays on.
As a resident living with a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and the anxiety that comes with it, this is not theoretical to me. It is personal.
I live on a fixed income. Like many of you, I have to make impossible choices every month between food, medicine, and bills. The medical protection law gives me the peace of mind to sleep at night. It quiets the gnawing anxiety that a missed payment due to a medical emergency could leave me freezing in the dark. It allows me to prioritize my health without the immediate threat of disconnection.
To strip that peace of mind from the disabled, the elderly, and the mentally ill is a cruelty we cannot abide. And for what? For a few pennies a day, literally (anywhere from 3.9 to 7.6 cents).
Data submitted to the legislature by the Center for Children's Advocacy suggests that maintaining this safety net costs the average ratepayer approximately $1.19 per month.
I am asking you to join me. I have drafted the following Open Letter to PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi. Please, copy the text below, sign your name, and email it to PURA.ExecutiveSecretary@ct.gov.
The Open Letter
To: Jeffrey R. Gaudiosi, Esq.
Executive Secretary, Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
Email: PURA.ExecutiveSecretary@ct.gov
Subject: Correspondence In Docket 25-06-28
Dear Mr. Gaudiosi,
I write to you as a resident of Bloomfield in strong opposition to any amendments to Connecticut’s medical shutoff protection law that would weaken coverage for our most vulnerable neighbors.
The proposals to restrict these protections based on income, or to specifically exclude those with mental health conditions, are deeply flawed. Medical crises—whether physical, mental, or cognitive—do not check a bank account balance before striking. In fact, severe illness is often the primary driver of financial instability. Means-testing survival is not a policy we should accept in this state.
We are talking about a safety net that reportedly costs the average ratepayer roughly one dollar a month—specifically, data cited by the Center for Children's Advocacy places the figure at approximately $1.19. That is a negligible premium to ensure that no resident of Connecticut loses their life because they could not power medical equipment or maintain a safe temperature in their home.
I speak not only from principle but from the perspective of the vulnerable. For residents living with disabilities, Traumatic Brain Injuries, or severe anxiety, this law provides a critical baseline of stability. It ensures that when health crises arise and resources are stretched to their limit, the fear of disconnection does not exacerbate the condition. It safeguards life.
This law exists because the system previously failed, and people died. We should not be looking for ways to create new loopholes for utility companies at the expense of human life.
I urge you to keep these protections fully intact.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Bloomfield, CT
Originally published by Peter C. Frank in The Bloomfield Community Dispatch.
Contextual Report: This video report on state-allocated funds to shield vulnerable families from rising costs provides relevant context on the broader legislative effort to protect Connecticut residents from financial shocks, paralleling the medical hardship protections discussed in this article.