May 10, 2018


James J. Judge
Chief Executive Officer
Eversource Energy
300 Cadwell Drive
Springfield, Massachusetts 01104

       Re:    Connecticut Water Service Inc.
              PREC14A filed April 27, 2018
              Rule 425 materials filed May 4, 2018
              Filed by Eversource Energy
              File No. 000-08084

Dear Mr. Judge:

       We have reviewed your filing and have the following comments. In some of
our
comments, we may ask you to provide us with information so we may better
understand your
disclosure.

       Please respond to these comments within ten business days by providing
the requested
information or advise us as soon as possible when you will respond. If you do
not believe our
comments apply to your facts and circumstances, please tell us why in your
response.

       After reviewing your response to these comments, we may have additional
comments.

General

   1. We note your disclosures throughout your filing that your "proposal
provides greater
      value and more certainty..." and "greater certainty." We also note your
disclosure that
      CTWS shareholders are not voting to approve the Eversource Proposal.
Please refrain
      from characterizing your offer as "certain," considering your proposal is
non-binding and
      you are requesting that CTWS Board meet with you to "seriously discuss"
the Eversource
      proposal. If your references to "certainty" are meant to convey that your
current proposal
      would permit CTWS shareholders to elect cash rather than securities,
revise to state this
      more specifically, while noting that at this point, you have only
submitted a proposed
      offer rather than an agreed-upon deal. (If you expect there to be a cap
on the number of
      shareholders who can elect to receive all cash under your proposal, this
must be
      clarified.)

   2. We note your disclosure that, on April 5, 2018, you submitted a
non-binding proposal in
      writing to CTWS to acquire 100% of the issued and outstanding CTWS Common
Shares,
 James J. Judge
Eversource Energy
May 10, 2018
Page 2

       and that no response was received to engage in a dialogue. We also note
your disclosure
       that you are disappointed that CTWS has been "unwilling to engage in
discussions with
       Eversource." Please tell us the basis for your statement as to CTWS'
"unwillingness" or
       revise to remove these statements. Refer to Exchange Act Rule 14a-9.

    3. Each statement or assertion of opinion or belief must be clearly
characterized as such,
       and a reasonable factual basis must exist for each such opinion or
belief. Please provide
       support for the following statements:

           "the SJW merger proposal does not provide adequate value to CTWS
shareholders;"

           your proposal provides "significantly greater value...for
shareholders, employees,
           customers and local communities of CTWS;"

           "Eversource has consistently demonstrated credibility, expertise,
and responsiveness
           in its proceedings before the Connecticut Public Utilities
Regulatory Authority and
           has a strong track record for constructive regulatory outcomes;" and

           the SJW proposal is an "inferior transaction," considering you do
not provide a
           comparison of the SJW offer to your discussion of the benefits to
shareholders of the
           Eversource Proposal.

Background of the Solicitation, page 3

    4. Briefly summarize the reasons why Eversource representatives contacted
CTWS in
       October 2017 and February and March 2018. If these contacts were to
discuss an
       acquisition of CTWS, revise to clarify. If they were for a different
purpose, please
       explain.

Additional soliciting materials filed May 4, 2018

    5. See our comment above. Each statement or assertion of opinion or belief
must be clearly
       characterized as such, and a reasonable factual basis must exist for
each such opinion or
       belief. Please provide support for the following statements:

           "Eversource has a strong track record of value creation, delivering
total shareholder
           returns of 184% over the last 10 years, which is 45% greater than
San Jose Water's
           more volatile and slower growth returns during the same period;"

           "...current value of the San Jose Water offer to Connecticut Water
shareholders is
           illusory and is not the value you would realize if this proposed
takeover is
           completed."
 James J. Judge
Eversource Energy
May 10, 2018
Page 3

          "The Connecticut Water board has approved a conflicted transaction
that preserves
          board positions and guarantees employment for its management team
while refusing
          to engage in discussions regarding a transaction with Eversource..."

        We remind you that the company and its management are responsible for
the accuracy
and adequacy of their disclosures, notwithstanding any review, comments, action
or absence of
action by the staff.

       Please contact Katherine Bagley, Staff Attorney, at (202) 551-2545, Mara
Ransom,
Assistant Director, Office of Consumer Products, at (202) 551-3720, or me at
(202) 551- 3263
with any other questions.


                                                          Sincerely,

                                                          /s/ Christina Chalk

                                                          Christina Chalk
                                                          Senior Special
Counsel
                                                          Office of Mergers and
Acquisitions