The Office of Gov. Ned Lamont released a document to the Hartford Courant purportedly to defend the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and its chairman, Marissa Gillett, from allegations by Eversource and United Illuminating made in a lawsuit that Gillett has single-handedly passed down rulings on thousands of motions, but the document may do more harm to PURA’s cause than good.

The utilities argue in their court filing that Gillett has violated their rights by issuing thousands of rulings on motions – some of them substantial – on her own under the guise of the executive secretary’s signature, implying the decisions were made by a vote of the full commission rather than a decision of the presiding officer, thus forcing the utilities to make their appeals in court. 

PURA officials maintain they’ve done nothing out of the ordinary, and Gov. Ned Lamont is defending Gillett, who is scheduled to go before the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee for reappointment. 

Part of that defense appears to be an accounting of PURA’s work, which shows that since 2019 there have been 6,133 rulings on docket motions. The document from Lamont’s office singles out eleven motions, interim decisions, and final decisions in which there was a dissenting vote to show that votes were taken. It makes no accounting of the remaining 6,119 rulings, and one of the motions listed on the governor’s document is incorrect and not supported by PURA’s records. 

The governor’s document lists Motion No. 23 issued on August 18, 2021, for Docket 20-12-30, and purports to show a 2-1 ruling vote with PURA Chairman Marissa Gillet dissenting. That ruling, however, was issued under the executive secretary’s signature only, and lists no recorded votes or dissents – demonstrating the very problem Eversource and Avangrid are alleging in court, namely that motion rulings are being made by the presiding officer under the guise of the executive secretary’s signature with no transparency or votes listed on those rulings.

The other listed motions do contain the votes and signatures listed in the document.

Adding to the transparency concerns, is that the dates listed for votes on the motion rulings do not match PURA’s meeting records, another issue before the court in Eversource and UI’s lawsuit. In response to numerous Freedom of Information requests made by the utility companies asking for records of votes on motions, PURA’s General Counsel has pointed them to the agency’s meeting minutes.

“As you and your client are well award, all votes taken by the Authority are recorded in the regular or special meeting minutes, which are publicly available at Connecticut State Agency Public Meeting Calendar,” PURA General Counsel Scott Muska wrote in response to an FOI request by Eversource, “Other than the publicly available meeting minutes, the Authority is not aware of any other documents that would record the votes of the commissioners.”

PURA’s listing for its agendas and meeting minutes, however, only links to the Public Meeting Calendar showing the meetings are publicly broadcast on PURA’s YouTube Channel, rather than written meeting minutes that are available for public viewing. 

In at least three of the motion decisions listed on the governor’s document – Motion Ruling No. 15 for Docket 19-12-18, Motion Ruling No. 36 for Docket 24-01-03, and Motion Ruling No. 15 for Docket 24-01-04 – the dates listed for the votes do not match PURA’s meeting videos posted to YouTube. Public meetings held by PURA a few days prior to the purported votes include no discussion of those motions, nor any votes on those motions. 

Were those meeting minutes and votes recorded publicly, and the written minutes posted publicly, the utility companies would likely not have a case and PURA could have easily responded to their FOI requests. As it stands now, per the allegations in Eversource and Avangrid’s court complaint, PURA has been unable to produce any documentation of votes taken on motion rulings in response to their FOI requests.

“PURA has now conceded that it does not maintain records of the commissioner’s votes on agency decisions. Of course, to have done so would have revealed the unlawful practices described above,” the utilities’ court complaint states, noting that under state statute that votes on any issue by a public agency “shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection.”

“Naturally, the absence of recorded votes of the commissioners, in violation of Connecticut law, supports the plaintiffs’ understanding that such rulings have been made by just one commissioner,” the complaint continues. “Such outcomes necessarily exceed PURA’s statutory authority and have harmed the plaintiffs’ rights.”

While the governor’s document also lists four final decisions made by PURA showing votes, which are publicly recorded on PURA’s YouTube channel, the fact that final decisions in PURA dockets are made by a vote of the commissioners has never been in dispute.

In comments received after Inside Investigator reached out to the governor’s office with a series of questions, PURA Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications Taren O’Connor said they only listed motion rulings on which there was a dissenting vote, and the 6,119 other rulings were unanimous but could have been reversed by the full panel of commissioners.

“If there is not a split noted on the motion rulings, then a majority of commissioners assigned to the panel supported the ruling,” O’Connor wrote. “Additionally… the majority may reverse or supersede the ruling at any time. The remaining data provided in the document reflects the percentage of decisions for which the PURA commissioners reached a unanimous decision since 2019.”

In previous comments to Inside Investigator, O’Connor said the presiding officer – who, as head of the agency, is generally Gillett – “will generally ensure a consensus before ruling.”

While the utility companies argue PURA commissioner votes on these motions should be publicly documented per Connecticut’s Freedom of Information statutes, O’Connor says PURA has not held public votes on motion rulings “for decades,” and is not required to under state statute governing PURA, which says two or more commissioners severing on a panel “may confer or communicate regarding the matter before such panel.”

O’Connor points to state statute 16-2(n), part of statutes governing how PURA operates, which goes on to state that, “Any such conference or communication that does not occur before the public at a hearing or proceeding shall not constitute a meeting” under Connecticut’s statutory FOI definitions.

“The Authority, for decades, has not held public votes as that term is used in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-225 on motion rulings nor is it required to by law (as the utilities have correctly conceded),” O’Connor wrote. “If a utility receives an adverse motion ruling, it has the sophistication and opportunity to challenge the ruling.”

PURA reacted to Eversource and United Illuminating’s lawsuit saying the move was “a distraction,” and an attempt to get Gillett removed from PURA, and “at 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,” said in an emailed statement on January 30.

Avangrid initially raised these issues in August during a gas rate case before PURA only to be told by the agency it was “much ado about nothing” in a letter signed by the executive secretary. The Attorney General’s Office likewise argued it was a “nothing burger,” during a hearing.

Despite those characterizations, PURA opened a docket to investigate its practices to determine if they align with state statute, and members of the Energy and Technology Committee proposed a bill that would essentially enshrine Gillett’s alleged actions into state statute.

The legislation, filed on the same day the utility companies filed their lawsuit, would reduce the number of PURA commissioners from five to three, and allow a single commissioner to issue rulings and decisions.

Gov. Lamont recently expressed frustration over the lawsuit saying he would have preferred to sit down and discuss the matter with the utility company CEOs. 

“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 concerning the utilities’ legal action. “That’s why ratepayers deserve better and deserve regulators who are capable of holding the utilities accountable, something utilities obviously oppose.”

Republish This Story

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