DRCT submits comments to the CT Regulatory Commission on medical protections from utility shutoff.
February 11, 2026
Comments Re: Docket No. 25-06-28: PURA Report to the General Assembly Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Protection
Attn: State of Connecticut Regulatory Commission,
Disability Rights Connecticut (“DRCT”) is a private non-profit organization dedicated to advocacy for the human, civil, and legal rights for people with a broad range of disabilities in Connecticut. DRCT is designated by the Governor of Connecticut as the federally mandated protection and advocacy system for individuals with disabilities throughout Connecticut. DRCT’s services include advocating for individuals with disabilities on issues including abuse, neglect, discrimination, community integration, voting, and other rights protection issues.
Under current law, C.G.S. § 16-262c(b), individuals with life-threatening conditions are protected from utility termination. Indeed, this law was passed years ago (in 1995) when a customer almost died because the power company shut of his power, disconnecting his life-sustaining medical equipment. This law is based on having a medical condition which must be established via a treating physician, physician assistant, and/or Advanced Practice Registered Nurse to be one where the “denial of or failure to reinstate such service would create a life-threatening situation.” There are many such conditions, from respiratory diseases requiring constant oxygen delivery to conditions requiring regular medications which must be always kept at proper refrigerated temperature. Although it is inadequately publicized, the existing law has been effective in protecting this vulnerable population.
Most of DRCT’s clients are individuals with disabilities who live in the community. In these cases, people may live in their own homes and rely on public utilities to provide heat and electrical power, allowing them to live independently in their own dwellings, rather than in nursing homes and facilities that cost exorbitant amounts paid by the state. For example, many of DRCT’s clients with physical disabilities rely on “track systems,” which are electronic Hoyer lifts that safely transfer an individual between their bed, their wheelchair, and the bathroom, ensuring safety while reducing injury among their support staff related to lifting requirements. For the track system to work, along with other Smart Home features, electricity is an absolute necessity. Also, even more individuals rely upon power wheelchairs, which need to be charged daily. Cell phones must be charged to enable voice and motor control to communicate and activate necessary healthcare equipment. Finally, it is common for aides to call out during stormy weather, increasing reliance on technology, powered by electricity, to sound 911 calls and address basic human needs in case workers are absent. What none of these mechanical and power generated concerns touch are the wallets or the purse.
In Connecticut a predominant number of these individuals relying on these devices in the community have conservators or guardians. It is important to note that the conservators and/ or guardians appointed by probate court decree pursuant to C.G.S. § 45a-650 or C.G.S. § 45a -670 often control access to disabled individuals’ income and assets, which also are limited based upon their medical and financial eligibility for public benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and Medicaid or Medicare. In instances where a conservator is appointed by the probate court to control the finances of the individual’s income and resources, the disabled individual is not permitted to pay any of their own bills. People with disabilities in these situations are completely and totally reliant on their conservators and legal guardians to pay their utility bills. They have no means to pay on their own because they are not in control of their own finances. Because of this reliance, adopting a new financial eligibility test for Medical Protection, with requirements of regularly proving eligibility, as proposed by the industry, will necessarily result in people with disabilities, who may on paper have resources but in practice have no funds at all, losing this essential protection. Regularly proving this will be difficult and result in inappropriate and dangerous terminations of utility service for many people, but particularly individuals with conservators or guardians.
In cases of negligence where conservators or guardians allow utility bills to accumulate, significant arrearages are evident; and left unpaid. In such cases, the disabled individual is at risk of losing access to their residential dwelling, and their utilities, through no fault of their own. It speaks to a larger issue that if utilities are not in-store, along with rent, they will be made homeless, and stay in the hospital longer if they do not have the necessary Medical Protections provided in the current law, to return to their own dwelling after hospitalization.
A Case in Point: In one DRCT case, a conservator was refusing to pay utility bills with significant arrearages because the disabled individual required a temporary long term stay away from their apartment. Eventually, the individual was at risk of losing their home. The conservator paid the bill only after DRCT advocated for the disabled individual. Individuals with disabilities often require long term hospitalizations or other care and should not lose access to their homes in the community due to the negligence of a conservator and the limited oversight offered by the Office of the Probate Court Administrator.
Any proposal to limit the duration of medical shutoff protections to 3 months or 6 months or to add another notice requirement is inadequate to protect individuals with disabilities who require constant access to utilities, particularly among those who have no control over their own assets, and who will have serious consequences, including death, through no fault of their own. The impact of these proposals on seriously disabled individuals who rely upon utilities for their survival, cannot be over-stated. This includes not only the cold months in the winter, but also the increasingly hot and humid months in Connecticut.
Finally, the proposal to have the probate courts involved in assessing whether a person with a serious mental illness should be entitled to Medical Protection is a recipe for disaster. The probate courts are already overburdened with overseeing conservators and guardians such that they cannot meaningfully discharge this responsibility. Making decisions about Medical Protection would impose an entirely new burden on them, which they are ill-equipped to appropriately carry. Inevitably there would be lengthy delays and erroneous decisions about the needs of such individuals for medical protection. Adding this burden would result in even poorer discharge of the courts’ obligations.
If I may be of further assistance to the Authority, you may contact me at 860-297-4300 or via tobey.partch-davies@disrightsct.org.
Sincerely,
Tobey Partch-Davies, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Disability Rights Connecticut
More about the proposed changes:
In Connecticut, state law requires that, if your doctor says you need electricity or gas kept on for your medical condition, the utility companies cannot turn off your service. This law is meant to protect people's lives.
Companies and some politicians claim that some people who can afford to pay their bills choose not to, which raises costs for everyone. However, illness can impact anyone’s finances, no matter the amount of their income. Under current law, the companies already have a way to collect unpaid bills, but don’t always do so. Making sure that sick people keep their lights and heat on only adds about $1.00 to everyone’s monthly bill.
No one should lose their life over a dollar. A young man with Muscular Dystrophy nearly died when the electric company shut off power because his mother couldn’t pay. That’s the reason this law exists:
ELECTRICITY SHUT OFF; MAN ON LIFE SUPPORT NEARLY DIES – Hartford Courant
The utility companies and some politicians now want to change the law to make it so that only some people get protection, if they can prove, repeatedly, that they are below a certain income limit.
They want to limit how many times you can get this protection and how long you get it - no matter what your doctors says.
Finally, they want to stop people with mental health conditions from getting the protection at all - they think that it should be up to the probate court.
The state utility agency (PURA) met on January 20, 2026, in New Britain to discuss these proposed changes.
