Ongoing tensions between Connecticut’s two largest utilities and the state regulating authority have escalated over the past week, following a lawsuit accusing Marissa Gillette, chair of the state’s utility regulator, of illegally making rate decisions without consulting fellow commissioners. Perhaps not so incidentally, the state senate is kicking around a bill that would grant her the authority to do precisely that.
THE LAWSUIT
Last Thursday Avangrid and Eversource filed suit in the State of Connecticut Superior Court seeking relief “to bring an end to a series of unlawful practices and procedures” deployed by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). The lawsuit alleges Chairwoman Gillette has ruled unilaterally on hundreds of rate decisions since 2020, leaving PURA’s other commissioners out of rulings that affected the utilities and several subsidiaries.
Avangrid and Eversource cite a state law mandating any matter brought before the authority be presented to a panel of three or more utility commissioners, with a maximum of five. There are four right now, each named in the suit- Gillette, David Arconti, Michael Caron, and John Betkoski (retiring soon). Governor Ned Lamont, who appointed Gillette to her post, has opted to keep PURA at three members, and there is legislation on the table to keep the regulating body that size.
The utilities claim PURA has disregarded state law in numerous circumstances. They claim that since January 1, 2020, PURA has issued approximately 338 substantive rulings pertaining to CL&P, YGS, and Aquarion (Eversource), and at least 144 of them “have made significant legal and/or factual determinations that have prejudiced those plaintiffs’ rights and constitutionally protected property interests.” During the same time period, PURA ruled 334 times on issues that mattered to UI, CNG, and SCG (Avangrid), with 131 causing similar “potential harm to customers” via prejudice.
The suit alleges Chairwoman Gillette asserted herself to be the presiding officer in all or nearly all PURA proceedings since the start of 2020, ruling without ever conducting a full vote.
“Such a fundamental abuse of authority violates the statutory framework that the Legislature created to ensure reasonable and functional regulatory oversight of public service companies such as the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit reads in part.
PURA and Governor Lamont have denied the allegations and dismissed the suit as part of an effort to oust Gillette from her position for decisions deemed unfavorable to the utilities.
A PURA spokesperson called the lawsuit “a clearly timed distraction by the utilities.”
“This lawsuit is an attempt to cast this as a due process issue only after repeatedly not getting their way,” Taren O’Connor said. “PURA has operated in a transparent and collective way for every proceeding and despite our efforts to reset the relationship and move forward in a productive way on behalf of ratepayers, the utilities emerge with this maneuver, which doesn’t decrease costs for ratepayers or change our regulatory environment. PURA has provided new and numerous ways for utilities to engage. That’s why ratepayers deserve better and deserve regulators who are capable of holding the utilities accountable, something utilities obviously oppose.”
attempted revisionist history?
This week, Connecticut legislators met to discuss a handful of energy bills in a public hearing with that freshly filed suit lingering like a stench over the proceedings, especially considering what one of the bills would allow PURA to do.
Senate Bill 1193 would maintain PURA’s three-member size and amend the state statute to allow the regulator to assign rate cases to a single commissioner, rather than conducting a full body vote… Precisely what Avangrid and Eversource allege Chairwoman Gillette has been doing for more than four years. Here’s the relevant clause:
“Any matter coming before the authority may be assigned by the chairperson to [a panel of three] one or more utility commissioners. Except as otherwise provided by statute or regulation, [the panel] any such utility commissioner shall determine whether a public hearing shall be held on the matter, and may designate one or [more of its members] two utility commissioners to conduct such hearing or may assign a hearing officer to ascertain the facts and report thereon to the [panel] designated commissioner or commissioners. The decision of [the panel] any such designated utility commissioner or commissioners, as applicable, if unanimous, shall be the decision of the authority. If the decision [of the panel] is not unanimous, the matter shall be approved by a majority vote of all of the utility commissioners.“
Both of Connecticut’s big utilities are, unsurprisingly, not in favor of this legislation. They were quick to point out the obvious.
In written testimony, Eversource argued the proposed law “would achieve only one outcome, which is to make currently unlawful actions lawful.” In its testimony, Avangrid said the bill “makes two substantial changes, both of which appear to change state law to provide cover to actions that are currently in violation of it.”
“It’s critically important to ensure that we have more than one voice rendering these important decisions,” said Vincent Pace, the assistant general counsel for Eversource Energy. “The concern we have with that current bill is that it says that one person can render those important decisions,” he added. “We think that’s unreasonable, it’s inequitable, it puts too much power in the hands of one decision-maker.”
PURA did not submit written testimony pertaining to SB 1193.
In Tuesday’s hearing, Kimberly Harriman, the senior vice president of public and regulatory affairs for Avangrid, pointed out lawmakers were lending credence to the utilities’ litigious claims and were seemingly attempting to legalize such actions moving forward.
“A judge is an impartial arbiter of the facts, of the record,” Harriman remarked. “When I see a judge at PURA, I’ll let you know.”
The barb drew a trickle of blood from Senator Norm Needleman (D-Essex), who introduced the legislation as co-chair of the state’s Energy and Technology Committee.
“Wow,” Needleman replied. “Nice shot!”
The contentious public jousting attracted the wrong kind of attention from other legislators.
“I must say I am incredibly disappointed on behalf of all the people who we ostensibly serve here in the state of Connecticut that it has degenerated into what is often derived from a toxic environment,” said Jonathan Steinberg (D-Westport). “And that toxicity is derived from a variety of sources and needs to stop. We need to get back to policy and issues and get away from personalities and innuendos.”
The Connecticut General Assembly’s 2025 legislative session will run through June 4.
