The assistant attorney general defending the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) in Avangrid’s gas rate case appeal admitted PURA Chairman Marissa Gillett alone rejected Avangrid’s claims that she participated in ex parte communications and demonstrated bias against the company, and then issued a letter stating “the Authority” had investigated those claims and found them meritless, according to court transcripts.
In August of 2024, Avangrid submitted a motion to PURA to recuse Gillett from the gas ratemaking case after finding she had emailed the Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE) instructing them to remove language from PURA’s website that had been cited by Avangrid’s expert witness that morning under questioning by Gillett.
Specifically, Avangrid requested in their motion the “issuance of a decision by the PURA commissioners to recuse PURA Chairman Gillett,” from further participation in the docket, and “issuance of a decision by the PURA commissioners to strike the EOE Evidence from the evidentiary record in this docket as tainted by the appearance of bias or actual existence of bias.”
What Avangrid received in response, however, was a lengthy letter issued under the name of PURA’s Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi not only denying their request, but establishing facts, and issuing conclusions of law under the guise of “the Authority.”
“The Companies did not offer, nor has the Authority found, any credible evidence of ex parte communications between the Chair and EOE. Similarly, the Companies did not offer, nor has the Authority found, any credible evidence of bias with respect to the Chair or EOE,” the August 16, 2024, letter states. “As such, there is no basis on which to reasonably question the Chair’s impartiality in this proceeding. Mere allegations of bias, unsupported by evidence, are insufficient to grant the ‘extraordinary’ remedies requested.”
However, under questioning by Superior Court Judge Matthew Budzik on whether to grant Avangrid discovery in their appeal case against PURA, Assistant Attorney General Seth Hollander admitted that it was, in fact, Gillett who made the decision denying Avangrid’s request and there was no vote on the recusal by the other commissioners.
“Was it, in fact, Chairman Gillett who wrote that decision on the recusal?” Budzik asked. “I mean, it’s signed by Mr. Gaudiosi, and you said that well, he’s just the guy that signs it but he didn’t actually have anything to do with it, which at least in my mind is problematic in and of itself. But that begs the question of, okay, well then who wrote it and who actually made the decision?”
“I believe in this case the decision agency did not put it to a vote of all three commissioners,” Hollander said. “I think in this particular case, I think it was the chairman who resolved the issue without sending it to the panel for a vote.”
Hollander argued that under judicial standards at the appellate level, it is up to the judge to recuse themselves and not a panel of judges to make such a decision.
“Our position is when it comes to recusal, that’s not a matter that is appropriate for a panel,” Hollander said. “So that you don’t have, in a collegial body, other commissioners voting another commissioner off the island.”
Attorney for Avangrid, John Cerreta, argued there is a history of PURA panels voting on recusals, citing three instances. “If it’s going to be one commissioner deciding the recusal issue, then there’s a process in [state statute] 16-2c to delegate authority by the panel to one commissioner,” Cerreta said. “But it wasn’t followed here.”
Under state statute, dockets before PURA are assigned to a panel of three commissioners to be heard, and with Gov. Ned Lamont only appointing three of the statutorily required five commissioners to PURA, it means that every case involves every commissioner. Technically, the panel of three is to elect a presiding officer to oversee the case, and PURA has previously indicated that Gillett, as chair of the Authority, is generally presiding officer.
Both Eversource and Avangrid argue Gillett has issued hundreds of substantive motion decisions on her own without the other commissioners officially weighing in on the matters. PURA has said Gillett generally gets a consensus on motion decisions before issuing a ruling, but there are no records of votes, including for motion decisions that have involved millions in ratepayer dollars.
PURA is arguing that a vote on the final decision by all the commissioners is an affirmation of their support for all motion decisions throughout the docket process.
Judge Budzik questioned PURA’s practices, particularly how they comport with the state’s Freedom of Information Act when there are no records of votes or discussions for anything leading up to the final decision.
“I’m sorry to, you know, I don’t know, get agitated but isn’t that the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, so that we know who is making decision and there is a record somewhere that, you know, Chairwoman Gillett or the commissioner, whoever it was, makes a decision?” Budzik asked. “Every school board in the state abides by that. Are you telling me that PURA just makes these decisions in some amorphous entity fashion without any record as to who actually voted on these decisions?”
PURA’s final decision in Avangrid’s rate case for both the Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation and the Southern Connecticut Gas Company ultimately lowered the gas rates, which Avangrid claims negatively affected not only their revenues, but also their credit rating.
Budzik ultimately issued his decision allowing Avangrid discovery into PURA’s procedures, noting the Authority, “failed to articulate a coherent statutory basis for the procedures it allegedly followed,” and “failed to clearly state what procedures it followed as a simple factual matter, regardless of whether those procedures have a proper statutory or regulatory basis.”
The court also granted Avangrid discovery into PURA and Gillett’s communications with Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, over an op-ed they claim they wrote and was published by CT Mirror. In it, the lawmakers claim rating agencies and Connecticut’s utilities are essentially colluding to undermine the state’s regulatory process.
Text messages and emails uncovered by the Hartford Courant, however, appear to show Gillett working with the two lawmakers on crafting a “draft” just before the op-ed was published. Gillett denied having any hand in writing the piece during her extensive reappointment hearing before the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Maybe people should be fired, for deliberately lying, seeing that you work for the public, not the private. No wonder there is so much corruption in Connecticut, it’s supported and encouraged, by corrupt Connecticut state workers.
Check out me legal GoFundMe page under (JJ Fox, Manchester, CT). Corrupt Connecticut state workers are abusing people labeled autistic and our taxes doesn’t pay for deliberate corruption.