Connecticut's Attorney General and Consumer Counsel have petitioned PURA to open a review of how public utilities use artificial intelligence
The petition is a request, not an order. Utilities, their AI vendors and consumer advocates in Connecticut now have an early view of the disclosures the state's consumer-protection officials want PURA to require.
Bottom line: On 13 October 2026 Attorney General William Tong and Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman petitioned the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to open a comprehensive review of artificial intelligence use by public utilities in Connecticut. It is a non-binding petition, and the release does not say PURA has acted on it.
Who this affects: Connecticut electric and water utilities, utility counsel, vendors that supply AI to utilities, and consumer advocates.
Issue date: 13 October 2026 (date of the Attorney General's press release).
What changed: Two state officials asked PURA to require utilities to report their AI systems, human oversight and governing policies, and to review data security and cybersecurity protections.
Analysis: In our reading, the petition itself creates no new duty. A utility with AI in storm response, customer systems or metering could start inventorying those systems now, because those are the areas the petitioners named.
Regulatory Briefing
- Instrument (English)
- Petition to PURA for a comprehensive review of AI use by public utilities, announced in the press release "Attorney General Tong, Consumer Counsel Coleman Petition PURA for Probe of Artificial Intelligence Use by Public Utilities"
- Authority
- Petitioners: Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman. Decision-maker: the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut, United States
- Status
- Petition filed, per the release. The release does not say PURA has opened a proceeding
- Bindingness
- Not applicable (non-binding request). A petition does not itself impose duties on utilities
- Issue date
- 13 October 2026 (press release date)
- Effective date
- Not stated in the source
- What changed
- The petitioners ask PURA to review utility AI use, require reporting of AI systems in use, and review data security and cybersecurity protections and breaches
- Who this affects
- Connecticut public utilities, including electric and water utilities, utility counsel, their AI and technology vendors, and consumer advocates
- Primary source (a link)
- Connecticut Office of the Attorney General, press release of 13 October 2026
- Workflow impact
- Not stated in the source as a requirement. If PURA grants the request, utilities could be asked to report each AI system's objectives, level of human oversight and governing policies
- Operational next step
- Inventory AI systems across the functions the petitioners listed and confirm who owns each one's oversight policy
- Last verified
- 2026-10-25
Primary source: Connecticut Office of the Attorney General, press release of 13 October 2026
Key takeaways
- This is a petition by two state officials, not a PURA order. The release does not say PURA has acted.
- The petitioners urge PURA to require utilities to report the objectives, human oversight and governing policies of each AI system in use.
- Eight functions are named, from storm response to Advanced Metering Infrastructure and third party vendors.
- The release alleges no violation by any utility.
What did the Attorney General and Consumer Counsel ask PURA to do?
According to the Attorney General's release, they asked PURA to "open a comprehensive review of artificial intelligence utilization by public utilities in Connecticut." The release says the proceeding would let PURA probe what the utilities have been doing, compare current operations to industry standards, and identify which areas meet standards and which need refinement.
The petitioners urge PURA to require utilities to report the full scope of AI systems in use, including the objectives of each system, level of human oversight, and the policies, procedures and protocols governing AI use within the organization. They also ask PURA to review all data security and cybersecurity protections and breaches, both stemming from AI and outside of AI. The release does not describe a filing deadline, a hearing schedule or a penalty.
Which utility functions would the review cover?
The release lists eight areas the petitioners urge PURA to include in the scope of its inquiry.
| Area named in the release |
|---|
| Storm response |
| Customer systems |
| Asset management |
| Planning and forecasting of energy load and water demands |
| Procurement of electric and water resources equipment |
| Grid, power plants and water distribution and treatment systems operations and maintenance |
| Third party vendors |
| Advanced Metering Infrastructure |
The list reaches beyond electric service. Water planning, procurement and treatment systems are named alongside grid operations.
Why do the petitioners say the review is needed?
The release cites cybersecurity and data privacy risks, algorithmic errors, and the generation of false and misleading information. It says the extent and scope of AI use in Connecticut utility operations is unclear, and that Avangrid and Eversource have both noted AI use in public statements and online. It points to other states, saying reliance on AI for weather models has compromised utility storm response elsewhere. It cites one reported comparison in which conventional weather models outperformed AI models in predicting the extent of a nor-easter last February, while noting it is unclear whether any northeast utility used AI models for that storm response.
Attorney General Tong is quoted in the release: "Artificial intelligence adoption is rapidly outpacing our ability to understand and control for risk." Consumer Counsel Coleman is quoted: "those opportunities cannot come at the expense of safety, reliability or hard-fought consumer protections." These are the petitioners' statements and arguments, not findings by PURA.
What should utilities, vendors and consumer advocates do now?
Nothing is required yet on the face of the release. Because the petitioners have published their preferred scope, it is a reasonable template for preparation.
- Utility counsel: list every AI system touching the eight named areas, including AI embedded in vendor software, and record the objective and the human reviewer for each.
- Check whether written policies on AI use exist and who owns them, since the petitioners ask about policies, procedures and protocols.
- Vendors: prepare a short account of how your tools are overseen and what data they use, because third party vendors are a named area in the petition.
- Consumer advocates: watch the PURA docket for any decision to open a proceeding, which the release does not report.
Related background on a state utility commission taking an AI inventory approach is in our briefing on the New York PSC utility AI inventory order, a different instrument in a different state.
Which dates and deadlines does the release give?
The release is dated 13 October 2026 and gives no effective date, filing deadline or hearing date.
| Item | Date or deadline |
|---|---|
| Press release and announcement of the petition | 13 October 2026 |
| PURA action on the petition | Not stated in the release |
| Reporting deadline for utilities | Not stated in the release |
| Hearing schedule or effective date | Not stated in the release |
| Our last check of the release | 2026-10-25 |
FAQ
Is the Connecticut petition a rule or an order?
No. It is a petition. Per the Attorney General's release, Attorney General Tong and Consumer Counsel Coleman asked PURA to open a review. The release does not say PURA has acted on it.
What do the petitioners ask utilities to report?
The release says they urge PURA to require utilities to report the full scope of AI systems in use, including the objectives of each system, level of human oversight, and the policies, procedures and protocols governing AI use.
Which utility functions would the review cover?
The release lists storm response, customer systems, asset management, planning and forecasting of energy load and water demands, procurement of electric and water resources equipment, operations and maintenance, third party vendors and Advanced Metering Infrastructure.
Does the release name any utility as misusing AI?
No. It says Avangrid and Eversource have noted AI use in public statements and online, and that the extent and scope of AI use in Connecticut utility operations is unclear. It alleges no violation by either company.
Does the petition set deadlines or penalties?
The release states none. It describes a request for a comprehensive review and does not mention a schedule, a compliance date or sanctions.
What we did not verify
What we opened: the Connecticut Attorney General's press release dated 13 October 2026, on 2026-10-25.
What we did not open: the petition itself, any PURA docket entry or notice, any response from Avangrid, Eversource or other utilities, and the sources behind the statistics and the weather-model comparison in the release. We did not locate a docket number.
What we refuse to claim: that PURA has opened a proceeding or will grant the request, that any utility has violated a law or misused AI, or that the petition itself creates any new duty for utilities.
The Connecticut petition is a request to PURA, not a rule. Utilities that use AI in storm response, customer systems, metering or vendor tools can build an inventory of those systems and their oversight policies now, before any PURA decision.
Related briefings
- North America AI regulation tracker
- New York PSC order on a utility AI inventory
- State attorneys general letter to Congress on frontier AI oversight
- Connecticut CTDPA opt-out rights for AI profiling
More: the AI regulation news hub.
Source File
Secondary: None relied on for the facts above.
Last checked: 2026-10-25 (UTC)
Status: Petition announced by press release, not an order.
Editorial note: Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.