Just one month after opening a docket to investigate its practices in accordance with state statute, the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) has closed the docket without a vote by the commissioners, potentially bolstering allegations made by Eversource and United Illuminating (UI) in court that PURA has been acting outside the scope of state statute and issuing rulings with little or no transparency.

The docket closure was issued under a ruling signed only by the executive secretary, which the utility companies highlight in a response, saying the action merely proves their point. Eversource and UI allege Chairman Marissa Gillett has been issuing motion rulings under the name of the Executive Secretary giving the impression it was a decision by all three commissioners.

“In particular, this correspondence raises an important question as to why PURA would issue its decision to close the docket in the form of the Executive Secretary Ruling in a proceeding in which the use of these rulings was the very question at issue,” attorneys Cheryl M. Kimball and Brendan P. Vaughn wrote. “If, in fact, the Executive Secretary Ruling is truly a decision made ‘By Direction of the Authority,’ meaning at least two of the three members of the panel agreed to the decision, why not just include the signatures of each member of the panel of utility commissioners in the interest of full transparency?”

PURA opened the docket in January to issue a declaratory ruling on PURA’s practices in response to numerous complaints made by Eversource and Avangrid, despite PURA’s prior defense of such practices both in dockets and in the media. PURA Chairman Gillett appointed commissioner David Arconti as presiding officer in the matter, despite statute requiring commissioners to vote on a presiding officer – something the utility companies were quick to point out in both their motion to dismiss and their latest correspondence.

Eversource and UI objected to the docket and argued Gillett and Commissioner David Caron should recuse themselves from the proceeding “due to the appearance of bias or actual existence of bias,” and since the docket would no longer have a quorum, it should be dismissed, according to the utilities’ filing.

While the Office of the Attorney General and the Retail Energy Suppliers Association signed on to the docket as intervenors, nothing came of it. Instead, PURA closed the docket, citing Eversource and UI’s opposition to it, but made no mention of whether this was a decision by all the commissioners or that of the presiding officer.

“The Authority continues to believe that an administrative proceeding involving a variety of stakeholders provides the proper mechanism to address any concerns related to the Authority’s procedural practices,” Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi wrote. “However, the investor-owned utilities are opposed to the continuation of this agency-initiated proceeding. Absent the meaningful participation by this essential stakeholder group, this proceeding would not be an effective use of the Authority’s limited resources.”

The utilities’ filing also claims the executive secretary’s letter contains “substantive legal conclusions opining on the appeal rights attached to PURA proceedings,” in a footnote that essentially argues PURA never did anything to impact the rights of the utility companies to appeal rulings, again supporting their allegations in court.

Furthermore, the utilities’ motion argues information supplied to the governor’s office in defense of PURA’s practices was not only “misleading” but also “confirmed its lack of impartiality by engaging in a public-relations campaign to oppose the assertions of misconduct.”

“PURA provided that document to the Office of the Governor for release to the press, in defense of PURA’s actions in using Executive Secretary rulings for decisions of ‘the Authority,’” Kimball and Vaughn wrote. “But that misguided effort only served to make our point, which is that more than 6,000 motions were decided without a record of the votes required by law. There is no such record because there was no such vote.”

In previous comments to Inside Investigator, PURA indicated that the 6,000 rulings contained on the governor’s document in which no vote was recorded indicated that it was approved unanimously by the commissioners and that as presiding officer, Gillett would seek out a general consensus before issuing a ruling.

However, included in the utilities’ submission was a PURA policy disclosed through an FOI request that states, “The Presiding Officer shall review the draft motion ruling, confer with commissioners and staff as warranted,” before forwarding the ruling back to PURA’s legal advisor.

“Remarkably, this new – and only recently disclosed – policy leaves to the presiding officer the exclusive, unfettered discretion to never consult with co-commissioners on motion rulings,” Kimball and Vaughn wrote. “This process directly refutes emphatic statements by PURA that all commissioners are consulted on rulings as a matter of course.”

It now appears these questions will be settled in superior court, particularly after the closing of PURA’s docket. Connecticut law generally requires a complainant to exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking redress in the court system, and closing the docket means ending a possible administrative remedy through PURA.

In comments to the media, op-eds, and interviews, PURA and Gillett accuse the utility companies of engaging in a public relations effort to see Gillett ousted from her position. Gillett was nominated for another term by Gov. Ned Lamont and is set to go before the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee for a vote on Thursday. Several groups — including 18 members of PURA’s staff — and key Democrats have publicly voiced their support for Gillett, authoring op-eds and holding press conferences.

However, text messages released to the Hartford Courant on February 13 appear to show Gillett and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, attempting to avoid Freedom of Information disclosures and coordinating on an op-ed Steinberg and his fellow co-chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, published in CT Mirror lambasting the utility companies and defending Gillett. 

Steinberg said he “took full responsibility” for the op-ed, and Gillett denied authoring the piece.

Against this backdrop of Connecticut’s two major utility companies in a legal fight with the state’s regulatory agency, Connecticut ratepayers are paying some of the highest electric rates in the country, according to a newly released report by Home Energy Club. Although roughly a third of a ratepayer’s bill goes to the utility, the other two-thirds are generally comprised of supply costs and public benefit charges – or the cost to utility companies to implement government mandates.

Eversource and Avangrid say the state’s regulatory environment has decreased their credit ratings, and Eversource indicated that it is pulling back future investments in the state.

“Given this deliberate course of conduct to issue one-commissioner rulings without review and/or recorded votes by other commissioners, there can be no doubt that PURA is continuing its unlawful conduct in this docket,” Kimball and Vaughn wrote. “Given PURA’s refusal to conform its conduct to the law, and the obvious inability of this agency to investigate or evaluate its procedures in this docket, the CT Operating Companies were forced to initiate a proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to address PURA’s misconduct.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.