Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s two largest utility providers, filed for an injunction against the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) in Superior Court, requesting the court put an end to PURA’s “improper procedures,” that “harm the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and interests,” according to the court complaint.

“PURA’s conduct has left the plaintiffs with no choice but to seek the requested declarations and injunctive relief from this Court to restore the lawful operation of proceedings before the agency,” Attorneys Thomas J. Murphy and James J. Healy wrote in the January 30 complaint. “Unfortunately, certain actors at PURA have undertaken a number of unlawful procedures that have the effect of reducing what the Legislature intentionally designed as a multi-member agency to the province of one commissioner.” 

The court action comes after both Eversource and Avangrid issued cease-and-desist letters to the state’s regulatory authority. The utility companies argue that PURA Chairman Marissa Gillett has appointed herself presiding officer for nearly all dockets and is issuing intermediary decisions and rulings by herself under the guise of the executive secretary’s signature. 

The utility companies say PURA never indicated these decisions were that of the presiding officer, which would have allowed them to appeal for a vote by the full commission. Instead, they had to wait until the docket was closed and file their appeals in superior court. 

In their court complaint, Eversource alleges PURA has improperly delegated the role of presiding officer almost solely to Gillett without a commission vote as required under state statute; that she has made unlawful rulings on substantive issues; made improper executive secretary rulings; violated the law by failing to record votes and concealed the “unilateral nature” of these rulings, which prevented the utility companies from seeking an appeal to the full commission.

“Although none of these dockets reflects any designation of the PURA Chairman as the presiding or hearing officer, it is now known that the PURA Chairman, after self-designating herself to be the presiding officer in all, or nearly all, of the proceedings conducted by PURA since January 1, 2020, made all of those substantive rulings, which were then issued over the signature of PURA’s Executive Secretary, a non-commissioner employee, without any indication or record of any vote of the members of the agency,” Murphy and Healy wrote. “That conduct plainly exceeds PURA’s statutory authority and Connecticut’s open meetings law.”

Avangrid initially raised these issues in a gas rate case, but both PURA and the Attorney General’s Office argued the use of the executive secretary’s signature is “much ado about nothing,” saying the executive secretary’s signature has long been used to issue intermediary decisions. 

While the utility companies concede that point, they argue that in the past the executive secretary’s signature was only used for administrative and ministerial decisions, not substantive ones like extending Connecticut’s COVID-era shut-off moratorium, which added $70 million to ratepayers’ public benefits charges.

Despite PURA’s assertion that it has done nothing wrong, the agency opened a docket to investigate itself, with Chairman Gillett unilaterally appointing PURA Commissioner David Arconti to examine whether PURA is following statutory guidelines. The docket, however, contains a provision preventing any of the commissioners from discussing those administrative issues, legally shielding Gillett and PURA from answering questions about the ongoing dispute, which has now landed in court.

The court filing comes the same day that Eversource and Avangrid issued a joint motion to PURA requesting the authority issue a decision to recuse Chairman Gillett and Commissioner Caron from participating in PURA’s self-investigation “due to the appearance of bias or actual existence of bias,” toward the companies, and then close the docket due to a lack of quorum.

The utilities argue that PURA can no longer proceed with the docket given the many conflicting issues surrounding PURA’s practices, which are outlined in both the motion and the court complaint, and PURA’s staunch defense of these practices.

“Consequently, under the leadership of the PURA Chairman, the Agency has already blessed its misconduct, while baselessly dismissing the utilities’ claims for due process with affirmative prejudice,” the motion states. “With the flawed notification that PURA now intends to investigate itself, under the supervision and control of the very commissioners who have propounded and/or abided by the unlawful procedures, the CT Operating Companies have no other option than to seek the relief requested herein and, further, to seek impartial review of PURA’s procedures through a judicial process.” 

In an emailed statement PURA Director of Communications Taren O’Connor said the legal filing was a “clearly timed distraction by the utilities to thwart the renomination of the very commissioners who regulate them.”

Gov. Ned Lamont reappointed Gillett for another term as a PURA commissioner and she is set to go before the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee in the near future.

“This lawsuit is an attempt to cast this as a due process issue only after repeatedly not getting their way. 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,” O’Connor wrote.

The court action also comes the same day as the Energy and Technology Committee submitted a bill that would dramatically alter PURA’s makeup and potentially enshrine these disputed practices into state statute and beat back legislative Republican’s criticism that Gov. Ned Lamont has not appointed the full panel of commissioners as required under statute.

An Act Concerning the Composition of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority would reduce the number of commissioners from five to three; allow the governor to appoint the chairman; and allow a single commissioner to issue rulings and decisions on any matter coming before the agency, and that commissioner’s decision, “shall be the decision of the Authority.” 

“Any matter coming before the authority may be assigned by the chairperson to one or more utility commissioners,” the bill states. “The decision of any such designated utility commissioner or commissioners, as applicable, if unanimous, shall be the decision of the authority.”

The bill is set for a public hearing before the Energy and Technology Committee on February 4. Committee chairs Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, have both defended Gillett’s stewardship of PURA and are critical of the utility companies, saying Eversource and Avangrid are fearmongering over their credit rating decrease, and trying to exert undue influence over lawmakers.

“PURA has offered settlements, while the utilities have appealed decision after decision, and despite a well-funded public relations campaign, the utilities are losing in the courts and when ratepayers see their bills,” O’Connor wrote. “That’s why ratepayers deserve better and deserve regulators who are capable of holding the utilities accountable, something utilities obviously oppose.”

Despite issuing cease-and-desist letters, Eversource says that PURA has “doubled down on its improper conduct,” and there are no other administrative avenues by which the company can appeal its case.

The utility companies seek multiple declarations that PURA and Gillett have been acting contrary to state law and are seeking multiple injunctions against PURA and Gillett over making unilateral rulings, failing to record votes, and seeking the fees and costs of the court action.

“PURA’s conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under the color of state law,” Murphy and Healy wrote. “The plaintiffs’ rights were deprived without due process of law, including in derivation of express statutory limitations on the PURA’s authority.”

**This article was updated with comments from PURA**

Republish This Story

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