Two days before embattled Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) Chairman Marissa Gillett announced her resignation, PURA asked the court to remand Avangrid’s ratemaking case for a new hearing at which Gillett would recuse herself. PURA argues this would eliminate the need for further discovery in the case, which includes the utility company’s request to subpoena Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, chairmen of the Energy and Technology Committee, for records and testimony.
“PURA now seeks a judgment that resolves this case in the plaintiffs’ favor,” Assistant Attorney General Seth Hollander wrote in PURA’s September 17 filing. PURA goes on to argue that while they continue to deny there was any bias against the utility, “as a practical matter this litigation has disrupted PURA’s operations and caused uncertainty to such an extent that a remand is in the best interests of the state and ratepayers.”
PURA argues that since Avangrid’s gas companies’ appeal was seeking a new ratemaking case, a remand by the court for a new hearing should settle the matter; they argue an administrative appeal is not the proper case to demonstrate bias by Gillett, and that since they are conceding the appeal, no further discovery is necessary.
Avangrid and Eversource have jointly filed a separate lawsuit in court alleging that Gillett improperly issued decisions and was biased against the companies.
“In an administrative appeal, the purpose of permitting discovery related to bias is to determine, ultimately, whether there was a ‘procedural irregularity’ in the underlying proceeding,” Hollander wrote. PURA also filed a motion to pause consideration of Avangrid’s request for additional discovery until the court has decided on their motion to remand.
That same day, Needleman and Steinberg filed their own objection, claiming additional discovery was unnecessary because the utility company has “already demonstrated the ‘due diligence’ necessary for the Court to draw an adverse inference.” Adverse inference means the court can reach a negative conclusion on a case despite evidence or testimony not being presented.
Avangrid has requested to subpoena both Needleman and Steinberg for documents and testimony over Gillett’s alleged involvement in an op-ed the two lawmakers wrote in December of 2024 that alleged Avangrid and Eversource were colluding with ratings agencies to sow fear and fight back against PURA. Text messages prior to publication of the op-ed show Steinberg and Gillett discussing a “draft.”
Although both Gillett and her Chief of Staff Theresa Govert’s phones were searched in discovery, both of their phones were set to automatically delete text messages after thirty days. Govert also claimed she couldn’t remember much about that month due to medication. Both Gillett and Govert claimed Needleman and Steinberg as friends and mentors in their depositions.
PURA has offered up an odd assortment of documents they claim to be the draft in question, and neither Steinberg nor Needleman, who would presumably have a record of the draft, have been forthcoming in presenting it. In their objection, the lawmakers claim the utility company is trying to intimidate and silence them, and that it would have a “chilling effect on our lawmakers.”
They also cite a July 17, 2024, letter from Avangrid to Needleman alleging he was making “false and defamatory statements” about United Illuminating – which Needleman labeled a “threat.”
“Plaintiff—who was embroiled in a very public ‘death match’ with Chairperson Gillett and who submitted nearly ninety pages of briefing on the issue of her alleged ‘obvious disdain and animosity toward the Companies’—fails to show that more is needed,” Assistant Attorney General Michael Rondon, attorney for Needleman and Steinberg, wrote. “Although further evidence of her bias is concededly relevant to this appeal, it is insufficient to justify the substantial chilling effect it would have on the speech of our sitting legislators.”
However, the lawmakers’ claim of “adverse inference,” was quickly seized upon by Avangrid’s attorneys, who claim it is tantamount to an admission that Gillett did assist in drafting the op-ed and that it only reinforces the need for additional discovery.
“If the truth is that Sen. Needleman and Rep. Steinberg researched and wrote the op-ed all by their lonesome—with no help from PURA—then it would have been easy enough to say so somewhere in the legislators’ dozens of pages of briefs filed by two sets of public and private sector lawyers,” attorney John W. Cerreta wrote. “Instead, the legislators say only that no deposition is needed, because CNG and SCG have ‘already demonstrated the due diligence necessary for the Court to draw an adverse inference, that Chairperson Gillett did ghostwrite their op-ed.”
The company denies it is trying to chill the lawmakers’ speech, saying they are not trying to hold Needleman and Steinberg liable for the op-ed, and they’re not trying to make any defamation claims; rather, the company is seeking testimony and documents related to a single question – whether Gillett contributed to the op-ed.
Gillett stepped down after a document was obtained through the FOI process that PURA had long insisted didn’t exist. The email from December of 2023 is from Govert requesting that the other commissioners go through her to make requests of PURA staff members. When questioned during her hearing before the Legislative and Executive Nominations Committee on whether such a policy existed at PURA, Gillett denied it.
The day after the email in question was reported, House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, requested a Committee of Inquiry to determine whether Gillett should be impeached based on her testimony.
The absence of Gillett – who has recused herself from pending matters before her October 10 departure – has left PURA with only two active commissioners; under statute, the Authority should have five members and requires three to hold a hearing. Gov. Ned Lamont, who has long resisted appointing the required five commissioners, stated that he is having difficulty fulfilling the positions due to negative press.
Avangrid argued PURA’s motion for remand “provides no basis for avoiding discovery,” and that the court still must render a decision as to whether PURA engaged in “unlawful procedure” through the chairman’s bias – something PURA continues to deny – to remand the case on its merits.
“The Court cannot simply remand based on an assumption, or because the agency would prefer that certain inconvenient facts never see the light of day in discovery,” Cerreta wrote. “This full airing of the facts is essential—not because of some vendetta or because the utilities seek to embarrass Chairperson Gillett on her way out the door, but rather because years of biased and predetermined decision-making at a powerful administrative agency have caused serious prejudice to plaintiffs.”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
