Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (Dissent)

Summary

This dissent argues that General Statutes § 16-262e (c) concerns a landlord's liability to the utility company when the landlord fails to pay utility charges, not the landlord's ability to recoup duly paid utility costs from tenants. It would conclude that the statute plainly permits recovery through a ratio utility billing methodology because neither the statutory text nor the broader landlord-tenant statutory scheme prohibits that method. The dissent maintains that any policy decision to restrict ratio utility billing belongs to the legislature, not the courts.