Attorneys for Eversource and Avangrid submitted a working draft of Senate Bill 4 – Democrats’ big energy bill for the 2025 session – as evidence in their ongoing court case against the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), claiming the draft was a “naked attempt to try to legislatively pre-empt this civil action,” according to the latest court filings.

Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s two largest utility companies, filed a lawsuit against PURA in January of 2025, claiming the authority has been violating state statute in how it administers cases, after repeatedly coming to loggerheads with the regulatory body. In particular, they allege PURA Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has acted as presiding officer and issued substantive motion decisions on her own under the guise of the full Authority.

However, a working draft of Senate Bill 4 that was obtained and published by Inside Investigator included language that would have made Gillett’s alleged actions in line with state statute and addressed a number of concerns raised by a superior court judge in Avangrid’s natural gas rate case against PURA. 

The working draft language would have allowed the PURA chair to appoint themselves presiding officer in any case before the Authority and issue motion rulings on behalf of the Authority. State statute currently indicates that a panel of commissioners must vote to appoint a hearing officer. The draft language also would have allowed commissioners to meet to discuss pending matters without it being recorded as a meeting, therefore not requiring meeting minutes.

“The fact that a statutory change would have been necessary to allow PURA to act in this fashion confirms the heart of the lawsuit: PURA’s present conduct violates the law,” attorneys Thomas J. Murphy and James J. Healy wrote in a footnote.

The working draft also sought to reclassify PURA commissioners as “administrative adjudicators,” for purposes of recusal or disqualification – another way in which the attorneys claim PURA was trying to render the lawsuit moot.

That draft language was stripped out of the bill after it was brought to light, and House Speaker Matter Ritter, D-Hartford, stated he didn’t know where the language came from, but did indicate PURA had a hand in working on the draft legislation, something also referenced in Eversource and Avangrid’s legal filing.

“As further proof of their open bias against the plaintiffs, proposed legislation – which, on information and belief, was instigated by the defendants – sought to reclassify PURA Commissioners as administrative adjudicators to avoid the obvious recusal consequences of these flagrantly biased public comments,” wrote attorneys Thomas J. Murphy and James. J. Healy. “That effort failed, as did a naked attempt to try to legislatively pre-empt this civil action.”

“Evidence of any role played by the defendants in these unsuccessful legislative proposals is necessarily relevant to the bias issues and the unavailability of a non-futile administrative remedy,” the attorney’s continued, and indicated the utility companies had initiated Freedom of Information requests for documents related to the draft but “true to form,” they claim PURA is stonewalling those requests.

The utility companies are seeking discovery in their lawsuit. PURA, on the other hand, has filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the utility companies failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and that PURA is immune under both judicial and sovereign immunity. Furthermore, PURA points to discovery in the gas rate case as evidence that discovery in the broader lawsuit is unnecessary.

“If the rulings were issued in contested cases, and the utility was aggrieved, it could pursue relief upon review – just as CNG and SCG are doing not in the Gas Rate Case Appeals… by simultaneously pursuing these actions in two different courts, Plaintiffs create a significant risk of inconsistent decisions by the judiciary,” Assistant Attorney General Seth Hollander wrote. “Much of this will boil down to the question of what powers a presiding officer possesses in a multi-member commission – a question of first impression. Regardless, while their pleadings suggest that Chair Gillett prevents other commissioners from hearing cases, the opposite is true.”

The utilities claim they did exhaust their administrative remedies after PURA opened a docket to ostensibly investigate its own practices after the utility companies raised these concerns. The utility companies objected to the docket and sought the recusal of Gillett and Commissioner David Caron “due to the appearance or actual existence of bias.” PURA then closed the docket, which the utility companies argue deprived them of administrative remedy – an argument PURA says is “unconvincing” in their motion to dismiss.

The language allowing the PURA chair to appoint themselves presiding officer and issue motion rulings on behalf of the full authority, and a second attempt to empower the PURA chair by asserting the chair is the “administrative head of the agency,” were both stripped from the bill, particularly after House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, indicated he would possibly run out the clock at the end of session if the language wasn’t removed. 

House Speaker Ritter indicated he wanted bipartisan passage of the bill, which purports to lower ratepayers’ energy bills slightly by moving some of the public benefits charge customers pay for government-mandated programs into state bonding. 

Connecticut has consistently had some of the highest electric bills in the country, and those costs have become a political hot potato in recent years following a surge in the public benefits charge due, in part, to PURA’s decision allowing public benefit costs to pile up well past the end of the COVID pandemic. 

Ultimately, Senate Bill 4 passed both the House and the Senate and awaits signature by Gov. Ned Lamont, who renominated Gillett as PURA chair, reportedly negotiating a now-defunct backroom deal to get her through the nomination process. Statutory language regarding how PURA conducts its meetings remains unchanged.

“Like many people, I think electric bills are too damn high, and this bipartisan bill is a first step in addressing a complex issue that is the result of policy decisions made years ago by legislators in both parties that have continued to impact our utility rates,” Lamont said in a press release. “I want to be clear – this legislation is one step in the effort to make energy rates more affordable and we should not stop here. This legislation is the result of cooperative input, and I am encouraged that we can continue taking additional steps that will lower electric bills further.”

Republish This Story

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