Expert Testimony

In 2016, a natural gas explosion in a Maryland residential building killed seven people and hospitalized dozens more. Investigators determined that a disconnected gas regulator was the likely cause—and subsequent review revealed that the utility serving the building had committed, more than a decade earlier, to replacing all such regulators across its system within ten years. That commitment had not been fulfilled. Maryland's Public Service Commission opened a proceeding to investigate whether penalties were warranted, and the Office of People's Counsel (OPC)—the state's residential consumer advocate—intervened on behalf of affected residents and ratepayers.

The OPC hired DHInfrastructure to support its participation in the proceeding. Our analysis focused on reconstructing the historical record: we reviewed the representations the utility had made in prior regulatory proceedings regarding its regulator replacement program, documented the gap between what had been committed and what had been completed, and assessed the adequacy of the utility's replacement activities over the intervening years. We prepared and submitted testimony on behalf of the OPC setting out our findings and developed a set of proposed filing requirements that would govern the utility's completion of the replacement program going forward—ensuring that the Commission would have the information needed to hold the utility accountable for finishing what it had committed to do. The Maryland Public Service Commission imposed a $750,000 penalty on the utility and adopted the filing requirements DHInfrastructure proposed for the completion of the regulator replacement program.

A dispute arose in connection with a South American power plant project involving construction delays, market penalties, and the allocation of responsibility under the applicable contractual and regulatory framework. The party facing potential arbitration needed to understand whether the penalties incurred were primarily the result of external market conditions, regulatory design, or commercial and operational decisions made by the plant operator. DHInfrastructure was engaged to provide economic and regulatory analysis in support of the proceedings.

DHInfrastructure reviewed the relevant contractual arrangements, market rules, and regulatory framework governing plant reliability obligations and participation in local energy and capacity markets. We analyzed historical operational data, market conditions, hydrological factors, and the operator’s commercial decisions to assess the drivers of the penalties incurred. Our analysis demonstrated that the magnitude of the penalties was shaped not only by external conditions—including rainfall variability and hydropower reservoir levels—but also by the operator’s own commercial and bidding decisions within the market framework. We further assessed whether alternative market participation strategies could have reduced the operator’s exposure under the prevailing regulatory regime.

Illinois' major gas distribution utilities have sought substantial rate increases over the past several years, and the Illinois Attorney General's Office has consistently intervened in those proceedings on behalf of residential ratepayers. DHInfrastructure has provided expert witness services across multiple cases before the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC), examining the prudency of capital investments, the design of rates, and the treatment of low-income customers.

In proceedings involving two gas utilities seeking significant base rate increases, DHInfrastructure submitted direct and rebuttal testimony reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in capital projects completed outside of qualifying infrastructure tracker programs. Our analysis identified systematic problems—including redundant cost variance explanations, project due diligence, and higher rates of cost overruns among projects completed by long-term alliance contractors—and recommended that the ICC disallow recovery of unsupported excess costs. In a separate set of consolidated proceedings involving two other major gas utilities, DHInfrastructure analyzed proposed residential rate designs and demonstrated how they contradicted the state's clean energy goals under the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act and imposed disproportionate burdens on low-usage and lower-income customers. We developed alternative rate design proposals that shifted revenue recovery from fixed to volumetric charges, evaluated competing low-income discount program proposals from multiple intervening parties, and positioned our recommendations within the broader context of energy policy and equity considerations—helping to establish consistent regulatory standards across all four concurrent rate cases.

When a Connecticut water utility petitioned the state's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority for a general rate increase covering both water and wastewater services, the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel intervened on behalf of residential ratepayers and engaged DHInfrastructure to provide expert support.

DHInfrastructure reviewed the utility's proposed rate design, bill impacts, and cost allocation between water and wastewater services and across service areas. We examined the affordability of the proposed rates for low-income customers and assessed proposed changes to the utility's residential bill assistance program. Our staff submitted expert testimony on behalf of the Office of Consumer Counsel that identified errors in the utility's rate design and cost of service allocation models, recommended changes to customer discount structures based on analysis of the customer base, and addressed a range of other rate design issues.