Attorneys for Avangrid are requesting the court issue subpoenas to Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, the chairs of the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee, for “testimony and the production of documents,” after the deposition of Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) chief Marissa Gillett revealed little new information in an on-going appeal brought by the Connecticut Natural Gas Company (CNG), and the Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) against PURA.
The utility company is also seeking an independent, forensic examination of the work and personal devices of Gillett and her chief of staff, Theresa Govert, after both revealed they knowingly set their personal cell phones to delete text messages after 30 days, thus erasing the communications between Gillett and Steinberg revealed through a Freedom of Information disclosure published by the Hartford Courant that appeared to show the two discussing a draft of an op/ed.
The utility company believes that Gillett aided Steinberg and Needleman in drafting their op/ed that appeared in CT Mirror, and which claimed the utility companies were fearmongering and influencing rating agencies to lower credit ratings for Avangrid and Eversource as a plot to push Gillett from her position.
Gillett is meant to act as a neutral party in her role as a PURA commissioner. If she were shown to have assisted in drafting the op/ed – which both Needleman and Steinberg say they “penned” on their own – the utility companies could show proof that she is biased against them, and therefore not deciding rate cases fairly.
During her deposition, Gillett said she considered Steinberg and Needleman both close, personal friends and “mentors,” and that it was not necessarily unusual for her to communicate with them on her personal device, although she didn’t consider the sought-after text exchange state business at the time.
Avangrid was granted discovery to PURA and Gillett’s communications but, thus far, the regulatory agency has failed to produce the “draft” discussed in the text exchange, and attorneys for Avangrid claim the Authority is engaged in a “slow-motion coverup.”
“Through it all, PURA persists in its failure to produce the documents concerning the actual ‘draft,’ and it has now come up with yet another new explanation as to what the ‘draft’ discussed in Chairperson Gillett’s text messages may have been,” attorneys John Cerreta and Perry Rowthorn wrote in their latest motion. “It has now become clear, however, that PURA has no intention of complying with these orders. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that PURA has spoliated evidence relating to this ‘draft,’ while at the same time PURA continues to cast about in search of some plausible explanation for how the ‘draft’ could be anything other than the ‘release/op Ed’ discussed in the Chairperson’s text messages with Rep. Steinberg.”
“Both Rep. Steinberg and Sen. Needleman may also possess additional copies of text messages, emails, and other documents that have been spoliated by PURA,” the attorneys wrote. “The time has come for the Court to authorize the issuance of subpoenas to these important witnesses.”
Both Gillett and Govert admitted to engaging in communications with Steinberg and Needleman on their personal phones, although both claimed those communications were personal in nature. According to testimony, Gillett purchased her new phone in 2023 and, during the purchase, had the phone set to auto-delete her text messages after 30 days. Similarly, Govert purchased her phone in 2024 and also set it to auto-delete after 30 days.
Additionally, Govert, who was connected to Sen. Needleman through prior political campaigns, claims to have no knowledge of any of the events or conversations that took place in December 2024 that may have been discussed in the text exchange between Gillett and Needleman.
“Ms. Govert provided a medical explanation for this loss of all memory as to the key events at issue,” the attorneys wrote. “According to Ms. Govert, the medication she was taking in December of 2024 has essentially erased all memories of relevant information related to this case.”
In the production of documents, PURA has pointed to seven different documents that could be the “draft” at issue, including a response to questions submitted by Sen. Jeff Gordon, R-Woodstock, and a response to questions submitted by Inside Investigator, which the company claims in no way could be related to the “draft.”
Presumably, Steinberg and/or Needleman would have the discussed draft and relevant communications, but both lawmakers have yet to produce them voluntarily.
Although both Avangrid and Eversource have filed a lawsuit against PURA over Gillett’s handling of cases, including issuing substantive motion decisions on her own under the guise of the full Authority, much of the battle over whether Gillett is exercising bias against the utility companies is playing out in Avangrid’s appeal of a gas rate-making case.
Any evidence revealed in the appeal will likely have a big impact on the broader lawsuit over Gillett’s alleged abuse of her authority and failure to follow both statute and Freedom of Information laws. Despite the very public battle, Gov. Ned Lamont supported Gillett’s reappointment to PURA as its chairperson. Gillett barely made it through the nominations process and, during the legislative session, someone inserted language into a draft energy bill that would have impacted the utility companies’ lawsuit, essentially getting Gillett off the hook.
“In light of this continuing obfuscation, further discovery is clearly needed. The Court should, at a minimum, enter an order that (1) authorizes the appointment of an independent forensic expert to collect, image, and review the work and personal electronic devices of Chairperson Gillett and Chief of Staff Govert, and to determine whether deleted records may be recovered;” Cerreta and Rowthorn wrote. “And (2) authorizes the issuance of subpoenas to Representative Steinberg and Senator Needleman for testimony and production of documents relating to the circumstances surrounding the drafting and preparation of the op-ed that appeared under their names in the Connecticut Mirror.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
