A court is allowing two utility companies, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation (CNG) and the Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) to conduct a discovery into the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA).
CNG and SCG are both owned by Avangrid. In November, PURA decided to decrease CNG’s rate by 5.4%, or $7 to $8 per month, which would decrease its revenue by $24 million. PURA also decided to implement a 2.5% decrease for SCG, which would lower bills by $3.50 to $4 a month, and decrease SCG’s revenue by $11 million. This decision weeks after both companies requested rate increases.
CNG and SCG allege that PURA did not follow the proper statutory authority when it appointed a panel to hear their application and when PURA made motion decisions during the proceedings.
“The court concludes that CNG and SCG raise colorable claims of procedural irregularities and that the court cannot adjudicate those claims without gathering additional facts outside the administrative record,” the Memorandum of Decision states.
According to the Decision, during PURA’s oral arguments in defense if its decisions to cut CNG and SCG’s rates, PURA not only “failed to articulate a coherent statutory basis for the procedures it allegedly followed,” it “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.”
General Statutes outline that, when a problem comes to PURA, the chairperson can assign a panel of three or more commissioners to review it. It does not state that the chairperson can appoint a presiding officer on that panel, which may have happened.
Additionally, General Statutes require that panel to publish each member’s decisions on specific votes about public agencies for 48 hours so the public can view them—but PURA Chairwoman Marissa Gillett testified under oath that commissioners “do not vote on motion ruling,” but rather “consult and confer.”
“It is therefore not clear to the court on what statutory or regulatory basis a presiding officer is appointed in a PURA proceeding, if such an appointment occurred in the underlying proceeding, what process was followed, and how and/or who may actually decide motions presented to a PURA panel for adjudication,” the Decision states. “Finally, it is not clear to the court what the statutory or regulatory basis may be fir PURA’s Executive Secretary signing panel decisions and presenting that such rulings are all decided by all PURA commissioners when no votes are, evidentially, actually taken.”
Inside Investigator reported that Gillett had secretly issued thousands of decisions using PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi’s signature block.
PURA has until May 1 to produce documents that demonstrate the process it uses to create panels, designate hearing or presiding officers over those panels, and the process of how motions in proceedings are decided and recorded.
CNG and SCG have until May 16 to depose one witness designed by PURA regarding any issues with the documents. They have the opportunity to request additional discovery after 45 days if they feel it is necessary.
CNG and SCG also alleged that PURA Chairwoman Marissa Gillett had ex parte communications during the hearing, and that Gillett acted with bias because of an op-ed that Gillett wrote for CT Mirror in December. The court denied discovery for the former allegation, and allowed a limited discovery for the latter.
On Tuesday, Gillett was reappointed as chairwoman. Senate Republicans walked out of the chamber and refused to vote on her renomination.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
