Court Opinion

ID: 9965687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 12:02:19.693208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.011474
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
  The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         2                                     ,0                          0 Conn. 1
             Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

             NORTHLAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION v.
                 PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY
                          AUTHORITY
                           (SC 20769)
                      Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins,
                            Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy, Js.

                                            Syllabus

         Pursuant to statute (§ 16-262e (c)), the owner or landlord of a multiunit
            residential dwelling ‘‘shall be liable for the costs of all [utility services]
            furnished . . . to the building, except for any service furnished to any
            dwelling unit of the building on an individually metered or billed basis
            for the exclusive use of the occupants of that dwelling unit . . . .’’

         The plaintiff landlord, N Co., sought a declaratory ruling from the defendant,
            the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), that it may use ratio
            utility billing (RUB) in recouping its costs for utility services from tenants
            in two multiunit residential buildings that did not have individual meters
            for each unit but, rather, had only a master meter. Under the RUB
            methodology, N Co. would bill its tenants for monthly utility charges
            on the basis of what it had determined to be their proportionate share
            of utility usage for the month, which could be calculated by N Co. on
            the basis of each unit’s square footage and the number of bedrooms
            and occupants, among other factors. In its final decision, PURA con-
            cluded that RUB violates the plain meaning of § 16-262e (c) because
            that provision expressly prohibits charging a tenant for utility services
            the tenant did not exclusively use. Nevertheless, PURA explained that
            N Co. could use the ‘‘building in’’ methodology instead and build the
            estimated cost of utilities into the fixed rent charged to tenants each
            month. N Co. filed an administrative appeal from PURA’s decision, and
            the trial court remanded the case to PURA for further consideration of
            whether PURA’s decision that RUB violates § 16-262e (c) conflicts with
            its conclusion that the ‘‘building in’’ approach does not similarly violate
            the statute. PURA issued a supplemental decision in which it reaffirmed
            its prior ruling. N Co. appealed from PURA’s supplemental decision to the
            trial court, which dismissed the appeal and rendered judgment thereon.
            Thereafter, N Co. appealed from the trial court’s judgment.

         Held that the trial court did not err in upholding PURA’s determination that
            § 16-262e (c) prohibits N Co.’s proposed use of RUB to recoup building
            wide utility costs by billing tenants for their estimated, proportionate
            share of the total cost of the utilities:

             Pursuant to § 16-262e (c), a property owner or landlord of a multiunit
             dwelling is ‘‘liable’’ for the utility costs, but a tenant may be liable for
0, 0                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 1

       0 Conn. 1                           ,0                                      3
         Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
         the utility cost when he or she is serviced on an individually metered
         or billed basis for his or her exclusive use of the utility.

         Because the language of the statute and the dictionary definitions of
         ‘‘liable’’ did not specify to whom a tenant would have to be liable, the
         utility company or the landlord, to violate the statute, and because § 16-
         262e (c) does expressly allow, under certain circumstances, for the
         allocation of estimated costs for units without individual meters, this
         court concluded that § 16-262e (c) was ambiguous with respect to
         that issue.

         Accordingly, this court looked to the legislative history of that provision,
         which demonstrated that the provision was promulgated to provide con-
         sumer protections to tenants in multiunit residential buildings with a
         master meter, and, because this court was required to interpret the
         statutory provision broadly to achieve its remedial purpose, it construed
         ‘‘liable’’ to mean that the tenant may not be held liable to anyone for
         the cost of a utility that he or she has not exclusively used.

         Moreover, states that have legislation that explicitly authorizes the use
         of RUB also have statutes that provide numerous protections for tenants,
         whereas Connecticut, in contrast, lacks any such explicit provisions
         permitting the use of RUB or defining the protections for tenants in
         such situations.

         In the present case, under the RUB methodology, a tenant’s monthly
         utility bill represents the tenant’s estimated, proportionate share of the
         total utility consumption, which N Co. would calculate based on factors
         that it would select in its sole discretion, and, therefore, N Co.’s use of
         the RUB methodology would violate § 16-262e (c) insofar as it would
         render a tenant liable to N Co. for the costs of utilities that were not
         individually metered or that the tenant did not exclusively use.

         Furthermore, N Co. could not prevail on its claim that, if § 16-262e (c)
         prohibits landlords from utilizing the RUB methodology, then it also
         must prohibit the ‘‘building in’’ approach deemed acceptable by PURA,
         as the ‘‘building in’’ approach, which allows a landlord whose multiunit
         building operates with a master meter to build the estimated, annual
         utility costs into the monthly rent for each unit, is entirely consistent
         with standard practices regarding the setting of rent and is governed by
         title 47a of the General Statutes, which does not prohibit such a practice.

         In addition, the ‘‘building in’’ approach also is more consistent with the
         remedial statutory scheme than the RUB method, as it allows for tenants
         to have consistent and predictable payments each month and places the
         risk that the tenants may use more utilities than anticipated each month
         on the landlord.
                      (Three justices dissenting in one opinion)
              Argued October 18, 2023—officially released May 7, 2024
Page 2                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              0, 0

         4                                  ,0                        0 Conn. 1
             Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

                                    Procedural History

           Appeal from the supplemental decision of the defen-
         dant finding that the plaintiff’s use of ratio utility billing
         was not authorized by law, brought to the Superior
         Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where the
         court, Cordani, J., granted the motion to intervene filed
         by the Office of Consumer Counsel; thereafter, the case
         was tried to the court, Henry S. Cohn, judge trial ref-
         eree, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court,
         rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal, from
         which the plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
           David A. Ball, with whom was David E. Dobin, for
         the appellant (plaintiff).
           Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, with
         whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney gen-
         eral, for the appellee (defendant).
           William E. Dornbos, legal director, with whom, on
         the brief, were Thomas H. Wiehl, director of utility
         oversight and regulatory reform, and Andrew W. Mini-
         kowski, staff attorney, for the appellee (intervenor
         Office of Consumer Counsel).
                                          Opinion

            McDONALD, J. This case resolves the question of
         whether a landlord of a multiunit residential building
         may recoup from its tenants the costs for utility services
         that it is liable to pay to a utility provider when the
         building does not have individual meters for each unit
         but, rather, has only a master meter. The plaintiff, North-
         land Investment Corporation, manages and owns multiunit
         residential buildings throughout the United States, includ-
         ing Connecticut. In its buildings that have only a master
         meter for the entire building, the plaintiff employs, or
         seeks to employ, a recoupment method it refers to as
         ‘‘ratio utility billing’’ (RUB). Under the RUB method, as
         developed by the plaintiff, it pays the utility company
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 3

       0 Conn. 1                            ,0                                     5
          Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

       directly for the building’s entire utility bill and then
       recoups the cost from the tenants in the form of a
       variable utility payment each month. Under this form
       of billing, the plaintiff bills each tenant directly for what
       the plaintiff contends is the tenant’s ‘‘proportionate
       share’’ of utilities based on factors it has chosen (which
       it can modify in its sole discretion), such as a unit’s square
       footage, number of occupants, number of bedrooms
       and bathrooms, or a combination of these. This method
       of utility billing is included in a provision of the plain-
       tiff’s lease agreements.
          The plaintiff sought a declaratory ruling from the defen-
       dant, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA),
       that it may use RUB in recouping its costs for utility
       services from tenants. PURA concluded that the plain-
       tiff was not authorized to do so. In the administrative
       appeal that followed, the trial court upheld PURA’s
       decision. Both of the parties rely on General Statutes
       § 16-262e (c) in support of their respective arguments.
       Section 16-262e (c) governs the liability for payment of
       utility services provided to residential dwellings. The
       plaintiff argues that the plain meaning of § 16-262e (c)
       does not expressly prohibit the use of RUB. Because
       RUB is not expressly prohibited by law, the plaintiff
       argues, the method qualifies as a payment of ‘‘rent’’
       under General Statutes (Supp. 2024) § 47a-1 (h). PURA
       disagrees and instead argues that RUB violates the plain
       meaning of § 16-262e (c) because the provision allows
       a tenant to be liable for utility costs only if the tenant’s
       unit is individually metered and he or she has exclu-
       sively used the utilities so provided.1 We agree with
          1
            The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) is an intervenor in this matter
       and, as such, filed a brief in this appeal. The OCC is an independent govern-
       ment agency, within the Department of Energy and Environmental Protec-
       tion, designated by statute as the advocate for all consumers of the state’s
       regulated electric, natural gas, water, and telecommunications utilities, as
       well as the customers of electric suppliers. See General Statutes § 16-2a (a).
       Section 16-2a (a) authorizes the OCC ‘‘to appear in and participate in any
       regulatory or judicial proceedings, federal or state, in which such interests
Page 4                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

         6                                     ,0                         0 Conn. 1
             Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

         PURA and conclude that § 16-262e (c) precludes a land-
         lord’s use of RUB to recoup utility service charges
         from tenants.
            We begin with an overview of this state’s statutory
         scheme governing utility billing and its relationship to
         landlord-tenant law. Historically, landlords in Connecti-
         cut who owned multiunit residential buildings with a
         master meter would estimate the cost they would likely
         incur for utilities that year and build that figure into
         each unit’s monthly rent.2 See, e.g., Conn. Joint Standing
         Committee Hearings, Energy and Public Utilities, Pt. 1,
         1984 Sess., p. 387, remarks of Attorney Raphael Podol-
         sky. Problems arose, however, when landlords attempted
         to shift the responsibility for paying the building’s utility
         bill to their tenants. For example, a landlord could insist
         that one tenant in a multiunit building pay the cost for
         the entire building’s utility bill and then collect pay-
         ments from the other tenants. See id., p. 384, remarks
         of Attorney Edward Dale. In 1984, in an effort to provide
         consumer protections for tenants against these prac-
         tices, the General Assembly passed No. 84-321 of the
         1984 Public Acts (P.A. 84-321), titled ‘‘An Act Concern-
         ing Residential Utility and Heating Fuel Accounts’’ (act),
         which was codified at General Statutes (Rev. to 1985)
         § 16-262e (c). The purpose of the act was to ensure that,
         in instances in which a multiunit residential building
         has only one master meter rather than individual meters
         or submeters for each unit, the landlord would be liable
         for the utility bill. See 27 H.R. Proc., Pt. 9, 1984 Sess.,
         p. 3274, remarks of Representative David Lavine (stat-
         ing that bill ‘‘clarifies’’ that ‘‘it is [the] property owner’s
         duty to provide heat and utility service for an apartment
         unless that unit can be individually metered’’).
         of Connecticut consumers may be involved . . . .’’ The arguments made
         by the OCC largely track those of PURA.
           2
             General Statutes (Supp. 2024) § 47a-1 (h) defines ‘‘rent’’ as ‘‘all periodic
         payments to be made to the landlord under the rental agreement.’’
0, 0                          CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 5

       0 Conn. 1                            ,0                                     7
             Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

          The plaintiff in this case owns two multiunit residen-
       tial buildings in the state.3 These properties receive
       gas, electric, steam, chilled water, and water and sewer
       services from public service utility companies. The
       plaintiff sought to use RUB to bill tenants for the utilities
       it provides that are not otherwise individually metered.4
       Under the RUB method, when there is a master meter,
       the plaintiff is billed directly by the utility company for
       all of its tenants’ utility usage. When the plaintiff receives
       the utility bill each month, it then separates the monthly
       charges and bills its tenants based on what the plaintiff
       has determined as their ‘‘proportionate share of the collec-
       tive consumption . . . captured by the master meter
       . . . .’’ Each tenant’s share is calculated based on fac-
       tors that are chosen by the plaintiff, such as a unit’s
       square footage, the number of occupants in the unit,
       and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. At oral
       argument, the plaintiff’s attorney affirmatively stated
       that RUB would not be used to recoup utility costs for
       common areas, such as hallways, garages or elevators,
       but the plaintiff’s sample lease outlining the plaintiff’s
       RUB calculation framework specifically permits it:
       ‘‘Under any allocation method, [the tenant] may be pay-
       ing for part of the utility usage in common areas or in
       other residential units as well as administrative fees.’’
       The administrative fees that could be charged to the
       tenants by the plaintiff are not defined or limited in the
       sample lease. The sample lease also makes clear that
       this ‘‘allocation method may or may not accurately
       reflect actual total utility consumption . . . .’’ Further-
       more, the sample lease provides that the plaintiff may
       amend the methodology for calculating a tenant’s ‘‘allo-
       cated share of utilities and services and all other billing
       methods, in [its] sole discretion . . . .’’ Finally, the
         3
            The first is located at 221 Trumbull Street in Hartford, and the second
       is located at 55 Main Street in Enfield.
          4
            Specifically, the plaintiff seeks to use RUB to calculate the bills for
       tenants for gas, water, and sewer services.
Page 6                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              0, 0

         8                                  ,0                        0 Conn. 1
             Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

         sample lease states that, should the tenant fail to pay
         the tenant’s allocated share of the plaintiff’s utility bill,
         as determined in the sole discretion of the plaintiff,
         within seven days of the date of issue, the tenant will
         be subject to a late fee, and specifies that a late payment
         or failure to pay the utility bill is a ‘‘material and substan-
         tial breach of the [l]ease’’ for which the plaintiff may
         ‘‘exercise all remedies available . . . up to and includ-
         ing eviction . . . .’’
            The plaintiff filed a petition for a declaratory ruling
         with PURA, seeking a declaration that § 16-262e (c)
         would not prohibit the plaintiff from using RUB to charge
         its tenants for utility costs the plaintiff is liable to pay.
         In its final decision, PURA concluded that RUB violates
         the plain meaning of § 16-262e (c) because that provi-
         sion ‘‘expressly prohibits charging a tenant for utility
         services [the tenant] did not exclusively use.’’ PURA
         explained that, although the plaintiff cannot use RUB
         to bill tenants for their utility usage, in accordance with
         § 16-262e (c) and historical metering practices, it could
         build the estimated cost of utilities into the fixed rent
         charged to tenants each month (‘‘building in’’ approach)
         as provided in their leases, thereby resulting in a consis-
         tent monthly payment. In other words, PURA concluded
         that billing tenants for utilities on the back end (i.e.,
         each month after the bill is paid by the plaintiff) is pro-
         hibited but that forecasting in advance what a unit’s
         yearly utility usage will be, and building that figure into
         the monthly rent at the time the lease is signed, does
         not violate the statute.
            The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal from that
         decision. The trial court remanded the case to PURA
         for further consideration of whether PURA’s decision
         that RUB violates § 16-262e (c) conflicts with its conclu-
         sion that the ‘‘building in’’ approach does not similarly
         violate the statute. PURA issued a supplemental deci-
         sion in which it reaffirmed that the ‘‘building in’’ approach
0, 0                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                  Page 7

       0 Conn. 1                        ,0                                     9
         Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

       does not violate § 16-262e (c) and explained that such
       an approach is ‘‘nothing more than the ordinary process
       by which a landlord calculates and charges rent’’ rather
       than provide a direct bill for utilities. The plaintiff appealed
       from PURA’s supplemental decision to the trial court,
       which dismissed the appeal and rendered judgment
       thereon. The plaintiff then appealed from the trial court’s
       judgment to the Appellate Court, and we transferred
       the appeal to this court.
         On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court
       erred in upholding PURA’s determination that § 16-262e
       (c) prohibits the plaintiff’s proposed use of RUB to
       recoup building wide utility costs by billing tenants for
       their estimated proportionate share of the total cost.
          Judicial review of an administrative agency’s determi-
       nations is governed by the Uniform Administrative Pro-
       cedure Act and is ordinarily restricted in scope, with
       the court’s ‘‘ultimate duty’’ being to decide, ‘‘in view of
       all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its
       order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in
       abuse of its discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
       ted.) Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254
       Conn. 333, 343, 757 A.2d 561 (2000). ‘‘Cases that present
       pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader stan-
       dard of review than is ordinarily involved in deciding
       whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted
       unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its dis-
       cretion. . . . We have determined, therefore, that the
       traditional deference accorded to an agency’s interpre-
       tation of a statutory term is unwarranted when the
       construction of a statute . . . has not previously been
       subjected to judicial scrutiny [or to] . . . a governmen-
       tal agency’s time-tested interpretation . . . .’’ (Internal
       quotation marks omitted.) 1st Alliance Lending, LLC
       v. Dept. of Banking, 342 Conn. 273, 280, 269 A.3d 764
       (2022). Whether § 16-262e (c) prohibits the plaintiff’s
       use of RUB is a question of statutory interpretation
Page 8                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              0, 0

         10                                  ,0                        0 Conn. 1
              Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

         over which our review is plenary. See, e.g., LaFrance
         v. Lodmell, 322 Conn. 828, 833–34, 144 A.3d 373 (2016).
            Review of § 16-262e (c) and the relevant statutory
         scheme must be in accordance with General Statutes
         § 1-2z and the familiar principles of statutory construc-
         tion. See, e.g., Sena v. American Medical Response of
         Connecticut, Inc., 333 Conn. 30, 45–46, 213 A.3d 1110
         (2019). The meaning of § 16-262e (c) must, in the first
         instance, ‘‘be ascertained from the text of the statute
         itself and its relationship to other statutes.’’ General
         Statutes § 1-2z.
            The plaintiff concedes the remedial nature of the
         consumer protections contained in § 16-262e. Notwith-
         standing that concession, the plaintiff contends that
         PURA’s interpretation of § 16-262e (c)—which prohib-
         its landlords from using RUB—violates the plain mean-
         ing of the statute. Specifically, the plaintiff contends
         that, because § 16-262e (c) does not expressly prohibit
         landlords from recouping their utility costs from ten-
         ants, RUB is permitted. For its part, PURA argues that
         RUB violates the plain meaning of § 16-262e (c) because
         it holds a tenant ultimately liable for the payment of
         utilities not exclusively used by the tenant. It reasons
         that, under the RUB method, even though the utility bill
         is initially in the plaintiff’s name, the tenant is ultimately
         responsible for, and liable to, the plaintiff for the pay-
         ment of the share of the bill that the plaintiff has
         assigned to the tenant under the RUB formula. PURA
         effectively argues that the plaintiff cannot accomplish
         indirectly that which it is precluded from doing directly.
            We begin with the text of the statute. Section 16-262e
         (c) provides in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he owner, agent,
         lessor or manager of a residential dwelling shall be
         liable for the costs of all electricity, gas, water or heating
         fuel furnished by a public service company, electric
         supplier, municipal utility or heating fuel dealer to the
0, 0                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 9

       0 Conn. 1                        ,0                                     11
         Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

       building, except for any service furnished to any dwell-
       ing unit of the building on an individually metered or
       billed basis for the exclusive use of the occupants of
       that dwelling unit . . . .’’ In short, § 16-262e (c) sets
       out the general rule that a property owner of a multiunit
       dwelling is ‘‘liable’’ for the utility costs and then pro-
       vides an exception to this rule: when a tenant is serviced
       on an individually metered or billed basis for his or her
       exclusive use of the utility, then that tenant may be
       liable for the utility cost. Accordingly, whether RUB is
       permitted under § 16-262e (c) turns on the meaning of
       the term ‘‘liable.’’
           Because there is no statutory definition of the term
       ‘‘liable,’’ we begin with the dictionary definitions of the
       term. See, e.g., Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden,
       345 Conn. 76, 84, 282 A.3d 1253 (2022). Ballentine’s Law
       Dictionary defines ‘‘liable’’ as ‘‘[u]nder liability or legal
       responsibility.’’ Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3rd Ed.
       1969) p. 732. It defines ‘‘liability’’ as ‘‘[t]he condition of
       being bound in law and justice to pay an indebtedness
       or discharge some obligation.’’ Id. Significantly, the defi-
       nition of ‘‘liability’’ goes on to state that ‘‘liability’’ is a
       ‘‘word of different meanings, the pertinent one to be
       gathered from the context in which it appears, con-
       strued in the light of surrounding circumstances.’’ Id.;
       see also, e.g., S. Gifis, Law Dictionary (2d Ed. 1984) p.
       270 (defining ‘‘liable’’ as ‘‘to be responsible for’’ or ‘‘to
       be obligated in law’’); The American Heritage College
       Dictionary (4th Ed. 2007) p. 797 (defining ‘‘liable’’ as
       ‘‘[l]egally obligated’’ or ‘‘responsible’’). Section 16-262e
       (c) does not specify to whom the liability is directed,
       the utility company or the landlord. If § 16-262e (c)
       specified that it governed only liability to the utility
       company, we would have to agree with the plaintiff’s
       contention that RUB does not violate the statute because
       RUB does not make the tenant liable to the utility com-
       pany for payment of the utility bill. If, on the other
Page 10                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              0, 0

          12                                  ,0                        0 Conn. 1
               Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

          hand, § 16-262e (c) specified that it precluded a tenant
          from being liable in any respect for utility payments
          other than those due as a result of the tenant’s exclusive
          use of the utility on an individually metered basis, we
          would have to agree with PURA’s determination that
          RUB violates the statute. Because the language of the
          statute and the dictionary definitions of ‘‘liable’’ do not
          specify to whom a tenant would have to be liable to
          violate the statute, we conclude that § 16-262e (c) is
          ambiguous in this respect. See, e.g., State v. Josephs,
          328 Conn. 21, 26, 176 A.3d 542 (2018) (stating that ‘‘[a]
          statute is ambiguous if, when read in context, [it] is
          susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation’’
          (internal quotation marks omitted)).
             The relevant statutory language is ambiguous for an
          additional reason. The plain language of the statute
          does envision a circumstance in which utility costs are
          borne or shared by tenants even when there is no indi-
          vidual metering, namely, when the landlord ‘‘fails to
          pay for such service, [in which case] any occupant who
          receives service in his own name may deduct, in accor-
          dance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this sec-
          tion, a reasonable estimate of the cost of any portion
          of such service which is for the use of occupants of
          dwelling units other than such occupant’s dwelling
          unit.’’ General Statutes § 16-262e (c). This provision
          thus does expressly allow, under certain specified cir-
          cumstances, for the allocation of estimated costs in
          units without individual meters. However, this provi-
          sion does not provide that it is the only situation in
          which the legislature envisioned the use of estimated
          costs. But cf. Commission on Human Rights & Oppor-
          tunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC, 342 Conn. 25, 36–37,
          268 A.3d 630 (2022) (inclusion of statutory exception
          addressing one situation indicates that legislature could
          have added additional exception to antidiscrimination
          statute had it desired to do so).
0, 0                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 11

       0 Conn. 1                        ,0                                     13
         Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

          Given this ambiguity, we therefore ‘‘look for interpre-
       tive guidance to the legislative history and circum-
       stances surrounding [the statute’s] enactment, to the
       legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to
       its relationship to existing legislation and [common-
       law] principles governing the same general subject mat-
       ter . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Her-
       nandez v. Apple Auto Wholesalers of Waterbury, LLC,
       338 Conn. 803, 815, 259 A.3d 1157 (2021).
          The legislative history reveals that § 16-262e was
       intended to provide consumer protections for tenants
       and is remedial in two respects. First, it clarifies that
       only a landlord is liable for utility bills if the building
       has a master meter. See 27 H.R. Proc., supra, p. 3274,
       remarks of Representative Lavine; see also Conn. Joint
       Standing Committee Hearings, supra, pp. 382–83,
       remarks of Attorney Dale (‘‘tenants are unfairly saddled
       with utility bills for service[s] that they do not actually
       use in their own apartments’’); Conn. Joint Standing
       Committee Hearings, supra, p. 383 (‘‘someone should
       only be responsible in terms of the utility bill . . . for
       the service that they’re actually receiving’’). Second, it
       provides a remedy for tenants that did not previously
       exist by allowing tenants, in an instance in which the
       landlord has failed to pay a utility bill from a master
       meter, to accept service in their own names for the
       utility bill and then to deduct from the rent the amount
       that they reasonably estimate not to be attributable to
       their own exclusive use. See General Statutes § 16-262e
       (c) and (d). As we noted, the plaintiff concedes that
       the act is remedial in nature and was promulgated to
       ‘‘absolutely [protect] tenants.’’
         As we discussed, the General Assembly added sub-
       section (c) to § 16-262e in 1984 when it enacted P.A.
       84-321. Subsection (a) of § 16-262e works in tandem
       with subsection (c) by providing that a utility company
       may not terminate utility service to a multiunit residen-
Page 12                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              0, 0

          14                                  ,0                        0 Conn. 1
               Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

          tial dwelling if it is not occupied exclusively by the
          owner unless the utility company (1) ‘‘makes a good
          faith effort to notify the occupants,’’ and (2) provides an
          opportunity, when practicable, for occupants to receive
          service in their own names. Speaking in support of the
          amendment on the House floor, Representative Lavine
          stated that the act ‘‘makes it clear that it is [the] property
          owner’s duty to provide heat and utility service for an
          apartment unless that unit can be individually metered.
          It’s important that this be clarified because there have
          been a number of instances [in which] tenants have
          found themselves responsible for collecting or trying
          to collect utility payments which they have been forced
          to make for other apartments in the building. This would
          make it crystal clear that if that occurs, the tenant can
          deduct a reasonable amount from his rent in order to
          get equity.’’ (Emphasis added.) 27 H.R. Proc., supra, pp.
          3274–75. Section 16-262e (a) also provides that, in a
          circumstance in which it is not practicable for tenants
          to receive service in their own names, the utility com-
          pany may not terminate service but may pursue the
          remedy provided in General Statutes §§ 16-262f and 16-
          262t, which allows the utility company to petition the
          trial court to appoint a receiver, who will collect the
          utility payments from tenants. Subsections (a) and (c)
          of § 16-262e, then, ensure that tenants are not liable for
          the costs of utilities they have not exclusively used and
          that utilities serving multiunit residential dwellings are
          not shut off because of the failure of a landlord to
          pay. This contrasts with the circumstances of a typical,
          single unit dwelling where the owner resides at the
          property, and the utility company can, after providing
          notice, and subject to certain other requirements and
          exceptions, shut off the utility. See General Statutes
          § 16-262d. In sum, the legislative history strongly sup-
          ports the conclusion that, ‘‘if you can individually pro-
          vide the service to an apartment, then the tenant can
0, 0                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 13

       0 Conn. 1                        ,0                                     15
         Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

       be made responsible for paying for it. . . . If, for what-
       ever reason, the building is so constructed, or the meter-
       ing system is so arranged, you can’t divide that, then
       that becomes a landlord responsibility.’’ Conn. Joint
       Standing Committee Hearings, supra, p. 387, remarks
       of Attorney Podolsky.
          It is a well established principle of statutory interpre-
       tation that ‘‘remedial statutes should be construed liber-
       ally in favor of those whom the law is intended to
       protect . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
       Hernandez v. Apple Auto Wholesalers of Waterbury,
       LLC, supra, 338 Conn. 815. The legislative history sur-
       rounding § 16-262e (c) makes clear that the provision’s
       purpose is to provide consumer protections to tenants
       in multiunit residential buildings with a master meter.
       Accordingly, because we must construe the statute
       broadly to achieve its remedial purpose, we must con-
       strue ‘‘liable’’ to mean that the tenant may not be held
       liable to anyone for the cost of a utility that he or she
       has not exclusively used. RUB impermissibly makes the
       tenant liable to the landlord for the utility payments
       because the tenant is responsible for, and bound to
       make, the payment charged to him or her each month
       pursuant to the lease agreement. Should the tenant fail
       to remit such payment, he or she is subject to a late
       fee and risks eviction. Indeed, the sample lease provided
       by the plaintiff explicitly states that a late payment or
       failure to pay a utility bill is a ‘‘material and substantial
       breach of the [l]ease’’ for which the landlord may evict
       the tenant. Furthermore, this court has established that,
       in cases such as this, in which the court must construe a
       remedial statute, it ‘‘should not read into [the] remedial
       statute an unstated exception that would undermine
       the legislature’s manifest intent . . . .’’ Commission
       on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associ-
       ates, 250 Conn. 763, 781–82, 739 A.2d 238 (1999).
       Allowing a landlord to mandate that a tenant be liable
Page 14                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              0, 0

          16                                  ,0                        0 Conn. 1
               Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

          for utility payments calculated using RUB would qualify
          as such an ‘‘unstated exception,’’ contrary to the legisla-
          ture’s clear intent.
             Finally, we note that several states have legislation
          that explicitly permits the use of RUB. See, e.g., Minn.
          Stat. Ann. § 504B.215 (2a) (West 2023); Or. Rev. Stat.
          § 90.562 (1) (c) (2023). These states, however, have
          statutes that provide numerous protections for tenants.
          For example, Minnesota’s statute requires landlords to
          provide tenants in ‘‘single-metered residential build-
          ing[s]’’ that apportion utility costs with, upon request,
          copies of the total utility bills for the building and notice
          of the availability of energy assistance programs for
          low income individuals. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 504B.215 (2a)
          (a) (3) and (b) (West 2023). Similarly, Oregon’s statute
          limits the landlord’s right to use ‘‘pro rata’’ billing for
          garbage removal and provides that utility charges may
          not constitute ‘‘rent’’ under the lease agreement, while
          specifying circumstances under which a landlord may
          seek to evict for nonpayment of utility charges. Or. Rev.
          Stat. § 90.562 (2) and (4) (2023). Connecticut lacks any
          such explicit provisions permitting the use of RUB or
          defining the protections for consumers in such situa-
          tions. Should the legislature decide to evaluate all the
          possible ramifications of permitting RUB, it is, of
          course, free to do so.
             Applying this construction to the utility services in
          the present case, we conclude that RUB does not satisfy
          the exception to the general rule that the property
          owner is ‘‘liable’’ for the cost of the utility service
          because the payments made under the RUB method
          are not for utility service that the tenant exclusively
          used. As the plaintiff’s sample lease expressly provides,
          the amounts charged to a tenant under the RUB method
          ‘‘may or may not accurately reflect actual total utility
          consumption’’ by the tenant. Rather, RUB uses an esti-
          mate based on factors selected in the sole discretion
0, 0                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 15

       0 Conn. 1                        ,0                                     17
         Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

       of, and subject to unilateral amendment by, the plaintiff.
       The use of RUB by landlords in this context therefore
       violates § 16-262e (c) by making the tenant liable to
       the landlord for the costs of utilities that were not
       individually metered or that the tenant did not exclu-
       sively use.
          The plaintiff nevertheless argues that, if § 16-262e (c)
       prohibits landlords from utilizing RUB, then it must
       also prohibit the ‘‘building in’’ approach deemed accept-
       able by PURA. We disagree. The ‘‘building in’’ approach
       is plainly not equivalent to RUB. Under the ‘‘building
       in’’ approach, landlords whose buildings operate with
       master meters estimate the cost they will incur for
       utilities that year and build that figure into the monthly
       rent. Such a practice is entirely consistent with standard
       practices regarding the setting of rent. Although not
       enumerated, the cost of rent often reflects not only a
       profit to a landlord, but also the costs associated with
       property ownership, such as mortgages, maintenance
       costs, capital repairs, real and personal property taxes,
       insurance, etc. Such costs, including estimated yearly
       utility costs, appropriately fall under the definition of
       ‘‘rent’’ under General Statutes (Supp. 2024) § 47a-1 (h)
       because they are included in the periodic payments
       made to the landlord under the rental agreement. As
       such, the ‘‘building in’’ approach is governed by title
       47a of the General Statutes, and nothing in title 47a
       prohibits such a practice. RUB, on the other hand,
       which allows for a separate and variable bill to be sent
       to the tenant each month, is a utility bill that is gov-
       erned by title 16 of the General Statutes. Title 16, and
       more specifically § 16-262e (c), does prohibit RUB
       because § 16-262e (c) does not allow for a tenant to be
       made liable for the payment of utilities other than for
       those which the tenant exclusively used. Notably, the
       ‘‘building in’’ approach allows for tenants to have con-
       sistent and predictable payments each month and
Page 16                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

          18                                    ,0                         0 Conn. 1
               Northland Investment Corp. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority

          places the risk that the tenants may use more utilities
          than anticipated each month on the landlord. This is a
          preferable system in this remedial statutory scheme
          because, under the RUB method, the tenant has no
          control over the utility usage of other units within the
          building and could be forced to subsidize a large utility
          bill despite the tenant’s own best efforts to keep costs
          to a minimum.5
                                       CONCLUSION
             We conclude that § 16-262e (c) prohibits the plain-
          tiff’s proposed use of a RUB system to recoup its build-
          ing wide utility costs by billing tenants for their
          estimated share of the total cost.
               The judgment is affirmed.
           In this opinion D’AURIA, ALEXANDER and DAN-
          NEHY, Js., concurred.

             5
               The dissent takes issue with our determination that the ‘‘building in’’
          approach is acceptable whereas RUB is not. See part II of the dissenting
          opinion. The dissent points out that the ‘‘building in’’ approach results in
          tenants effectively subsidizing the utility consumption of the other tenants
          in the building, which is an issue with RUB as well. See id. The key difference,
          however, as stated in this opinion, is that, under the ‘‘building in’’ approach,
          tenants have a consistent and predictable monthly payment. If a landlord
          underestimates the cost of utilities in a given year, it is the landlord who
          must absorb the cost. Under the RUB method, however, not only do the
          tenants subsidize the utility consumption of their neighbors, but they have
          absolutely no control over, and cannot predict, the amount that is due each
          month to cover the utilities of the building. It is these two factors that exist
          under the RUB method that, combined, make the system unreasonable in
          the absence of legislation that authorizes, and places parameters around
          the use of, RUB.