July 24, 2018


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

       Re:    Connecticut Water Service Inc.
              Soliciting Materials Filed July 13, 2018
              PRRN 14A filed July 18, 2018
              Response Dated June 18, 2018
              Filed by Eversource Energy
              File No. 000-08084

Dear Mr. Judge:

       We have reviewed your July 18, 2018 response to our comment letter and
your amended
proxy statement, 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.

PRRN14A Filed July 18, 2018

   1. Refer to comment 1 in our June 21, 2018 comment letter. As previously
requested,
      where you tout the superior value afforded by your proposal to acquire
CTWS, please
      disclose the fact that the terms of any acquisition of CTWS by
Eversource, should one
      occur, have not yet been finalized and are subject to further discussion
and negotiation.
      See for example, the disclosure at the bottom of page I of the revised
proxy statement,
      where you favorably compare the value afforded by your proposal to the
SJW merger.

   2. We note your response to comment 2 in our June 21, 2018 comment letter,
and your
      revised disclosure that "as a result of these measures, none of the more
than 50 potential
      bidders who were contacted by CTWS's financial advisor as part of the
go-shop process
      submitted a proposal or indication of interest." Please remove statements
that these other
      potential bidders failed to submit bids based on CTWS' decision not to
eliminate or
 James J. Judge
Eversource Energy
July 24, 2018
Page 2

       reduce the termination fee and its decision to agree to extend the tail
period from 12 to 15
       months. It is inappropriate for you to speculate on the motivations of
third parties.

    3. Please clarify your disclosure that your financial advisor "noted its
confusion over
       number valuations provided by CTWS's financial advisor" by identifying
the source of
       "confusion" and explaining the same in detail.

    4. Refer to comment 3 in our June 21, 2018 letter and comment 1 in our May
24, 2018
       letter, and your responses. We continue to believe it important to
disclose that there may
       be a cap on the amount of cash or stock of Eversource CTWS shareholders
could elect in
       any acquisition by Eversource. In this regard, we note the repeated
references throughout
       your revised proxy statement to your proposal as "superior" and a
"superior alternative"
       to SJW's "all-stock" merger. In this context, we believe it is important
to note that the
       terms of any acquisition by Eversource are not known at this time, which
means that
       references to a cash/stock election feature of any proposal must note
that either form of
       consideration may be capped. Please revise to address, where such
comparisons appear
       throughout the proxy statement.

Additional Soliciting Materials filed July 13, 2018

    5. We note your disclosure that "Eversource's proposal far exceeds the
$61.86 per share
       offered by San Jose Water." Considering that SJW's offer is an all-stock
offer, in future
       solicitations, please refrain from implying that SJW's offer is a cash
offer, and provide a
       date at which you measured the value of the SJW offer.

    6. See our comment above. As requested in our comment letter dated June 21,
2018, where
       you disclose that Eversource's proposal provide superior value, please
disclose the fact
       that the terms of any acquisition by Eversource have not been determined
and that the
       final consideration to be received in such a transaction if it occurs at
all is subject to
       further negotiation and discussion. In this regard, it is our
understanding that your offer
       is non-binding at this time.

    7. Please provide support for your statement that "San Jose Water's
inferior proposal . . .
       would require an extensive regulatory review process in . . .
California" or state in the
       future that it may require regulatory review, considering California has
not made a
       determination as to whether the transaction is subject to CPUC review.

    8. The opinions and beliefs of your management must be clearly
characterized as such. In
       future solicitations, please clearly characterize statements about the
SJW/CTWS merger
       closing, such as "trading prices currently in the market certainly imply
the expectation
       that your transaction with San Jose water will not close," as
management's opinion or
       belief.
 James J. Judge
Eversource Energy
July 24, 2018
Page 3

       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



cc:    Marko S. Zatylny, Esq. (via email)