Connecticut electric ratepayers are paying tens of thousands of dollars for childcare, participant stipends, food, transportation, and executive director pay for a tiny organization to hold workshops on how to participate in dockets before the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), with at least one of those workshops being headlined by former PURA chairman Marissa Gillett who was then given a service award by the organization on November 15.

The Hartford-based Nonprofit Accountability Group (NAG), which was started in 2021 by Tenaya Taylor and lists a variety of focus areas, ranging from LGBTQIA2+ to housing justice and art programs for kids, has received roughly $192,513 of ratepayer funds through a law passed by the General Assembly in 2023 that allows stakeholder groups to recover their costs for participating in PURA dockets.

Senate Bill 7 in 2023 was an omnibus energy bill that established the Stakeholder Group Compensation Program under the auspices of increasing participation and input from “groups representing the interests of residential utility customers residing in an environmental justice community or receiving protection as hardship cases.” 

The legislation generally allows the costs of attorneys and expert witnesses to be billed to utility companies and then recovered through the public benefits charge, with a maximum of $100,000 per group, $300,000 across all groups per case, and $1.2 million per year. Groups experiencing financial hardship can apply for an advance on the funds with an agreement that they will substantially participate as an intervenor in PURA’s proceedings.

However, PURA has also approved tens of thousands of dollars for NAG to hold multi-day workshops during which participants are given stipends for participation, childcare, food, transportation, and bonuses for full attendance. 

For instance, in NAG’s itemized budget submitted in December of 2024 requesting $83,764, they listed $10,000 for NAG founder Tenaya Taylor to attend and coordinate workshops and “docket-related meetings,” and to conduct outreach; $2,500 for participant transportation; $10,000 in stipends for workshop participants; $2,000 for childcare; $2,000 for translation services; $3,000 for food, and $1,000 in bonus stipends for “perfect attendance.”

The remainder – and the majority of funds – went to attorney and former Hartford Councilwoman Cynthia Jennings, who was budgeted $22,600 to coordinate the workshops, make presentations, review public comments and prep members to testify; $23,500 to Writing Wrongs, LLC which assists in the development of the workshops and whose owner, Jameson C. Davis, signs off on NAG’s submissions to PURA; and then finally $16,000 to Dr. Mark Mitchell, associate professor of climate change, energy, and environmental health equity at George Mason University, who lives in Hartford.

Although PURA held the full request in reserve, it ultimately paid out $77,264 over two payments – one in December of 2024 and another in July of 2025 for NAG’s participation in that docket.

Similar charges were repeated in varying amounts throughout four different motions filed by NAG for advanced distributions to participate in dockets ranging from improving equity, accessibility and stakeholder engagement to energy storage solutions and affordability programs and offerings. 

In their initial request for $100,000 in December of 2024, Davis described the organization as a “boutique-sized grassroots nonprofit operating on an annual budget of under $100,000,” and indicated the group “represents the interests of approximately 10-15 residential utility customers in the Hartford, Connecticut area.” It should be noted, however, that NAG is not a designated 501(c)3 organization and is listed as an LLC.

“The Nonprofit Accountability Group (NAG) seeks to participate in this proceeding to ensure that the voices of historically marginalized communities are heard and meaningfully integrated into the decision-making processes affecting utility policies. Meaningful engagement will require substantial education of NAG members on the roles and responsibilities of PURA,” Davis wrote. “NAG members understand that energy insecurity intersects with housing, health, and economic stability, often requiring a holistic approach. They can identify structural gaps and policy shortcomings, ensuring affordability programs are equitable and effective.”

In NAG’s application for funding in December, it was indicated that their initial $100,000 request to hold the workshop would constitute 65 percent of the organization’s total budget, which is unknown at this time. However, the group did file for advanced funding and received approval by PURA due to significant financial challenges, which was then repeated three more times throughout 2025.

The Office of the Consumer Counsel (OCC), however, offered comment and some caution to PURA regarding NAG’s funding request, indicating that while the OCC supported the stakeholder program, they believed some of this funding was not necessary and unreasonable. 

OCC Staff Attorney Kimberly White noted NAG’s request for $9,000 for drafting testimony was for a docket that did not, at the time, “indicate an opportunity for written comments;” $2,000 for filing fees when PURA doesn’t charge filing fees, and then noted the $10,000 for participant stipends, $3,000 for food, and $5,000 for a fiscal sponsor fee, which she said is an “overhead expense that should not be funded by ratepayers.”

“It is unclear that NAG’s request for $100,000 of advanced funding is commensurate with its annual budget, usual expenses, or the scope of its usual work,” White wrote. “Additionally, it is unclear from the filing that NAG has experience performing the work indicated to the degree indicated and with the budget requested. Under the circumstances, the Authority should be certain advanced payment is the most appropriate use of ratepayer funds, and it may make sense to provide funding more incrementally.”

“All funds were used appropriately and in full compliance with program requirements and state law,” Davis, head of Writing Wrongs, said in written comments. “From a pool of more than 50 low-wealth ratepayers, NAG selected 20–25 participants for each workshop to ensure high-quality engagement. These participants, in turn, engage dozens of others to provide additional input into the PURA regulatory process to make it more fair for low-wealth ratepayers. The funding is used to reduce barriers to participation by those who are often affected by, but absent from, these decision-making processes.”

The December 2024 request – like the subsequent requests made throughout 2025 – was filed as a docket motion and approved with no indication of a vote by PURA commissioners and signed only by PURA’s executive secretary. Under the terms of the statute, PURA can award funds for other “reasonable costs,” outside of attorney and expert witness fees.

PURA has admitted in court that Gillett named herself presiding officer over PURA dockets and unilaterally issued motion rulings under the executive secretary’s signature in violation of state statute. The controversial former chair stepped down after previously withheld emails contradicted her sworn testimony before the Executive and Legislative nominations committee, and is now working for a nonprofit dedicated to dismantling monopolies.

Gillett was not compensated for her participation in the latest workshop, according to both Davis and Cynthia Jennings.

NAG appears to have received the most funding thus far compared to other organizations utilizing the stakeholder program. Despite their questionable budget items, their tiny, local presence and workshops teaching people how PURA’s complicated docket process works may be more akin to what lawmakers envisioned when they authorized the program, as opposed to some other multi-million-dollar organizations using the program.

The Center for Children’s Advocacy, which shows $3.2 million in revenue in 2024; Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven, which shows $4.4 million in revenue in 2024; and Operation Fuel, which shows $7.5 million in revenue in 2024, have all utilized the Stakeholder Program to subsidize staffing costs to participate in PURA dockets.

For instance, Operation Fuel was approved in a motion ruling for $39,962.91 in February of 2025, again under a letter signed only by the executive secretary. According to their budget document, $23,193.23 was for policy staff, $7,798.32 was for communications staff, $5,114.03 for senior leadership, $3,484.24 for programs staff, and a few hundred dollars for “outreach activities.”

With a yearly cap of $1.2 million, the costs are a drop in the bucket of the nearly $1 billion per year Connecticut ratepayers pay through the public benefits charge on their utility bill to cover programs imposed by the General Assembly, ranging from power purchase agreements with the Millstone nuclear energy plant to electric vehicle charging and testing new technologies. Lawmakers this past session removed $155 million of the public benefits costs from state bonding to try to ease the burden.

But that relatively new policy comes amid heightened scrutiny over Connecticut’s funding of nonprofits and other organizations following revelations that Sen. Douglas McCrory, D-Hartford, had allegedly directed millions of dollars through various nonprofits to an organization owned by a woman with whom he had a personal relationship. Those payments are currently under federal investigation.

In October of 2025, House and Senate Republicans held a press conference drawing attention to numerous questionable nonprofits that had received tens of thousands of dollars in earmarks through the state budget. Some of those nonprofits consisted only of a couple social media posts or no online presence whatsoever and purportedly had connections to lawmakers. Republicans were pushing for more oversight of how taxpayer funds are awarded to nonprofits by requiring those organizations to submit financial information and be subject to audits. 

NAG was not included on that list of nonprofits receiving earmarks. While the organization indicated it receives funding through “foundational giving,” they also noted that the funding was not “robust” enough, according to their PURA filing.

“We are a group of low-income utility ratepayers who are concerned about the high utility bills,” said attorney Jennings when reached for comment. “We are the people most affected by high utility rates. We are grateful for the Stakeholder Group Compensation Program, which allows us to have a voice in the utility regulatory process.”

Republish This Story

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