Originally labeled a “nothing burger” and “much ado about nothing” by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and the Attorney General’s office, PURA has now conceded in court that former chairman Marissa Gillett violated numerous state statutes during her tenure and that admission could allow utility companies to appeal past decisions in which Gillett operated outside the bounds of her authority.

As outlined in a January 2025 story by Inside Investigator, Gillett made herself presiding officer on all new dockets, issued motion decisions on those dockets without taking votes from other commissioners, and then issued those decisions under the signature of the executive secretary, which implied that it was a decision by the full Authority. 

Gillett issued substantive decisions herself under the guise of the full authority, making findings of fact and law, including investigating herself for allegations of bias, and extending COVID era electricity shutoff provisions that added $70 million to ratepayers’ public benefits charges.

Had the utility companies been aware that such decisions were made only by the presiding officer, they could have appealed for a full vote of all commissioners; therefore, the utility companies were essentially denied their due process and fairness rights before the state’s regulatory body.

On November 19, Superior Court Judge Matthew Budzik remanded the Connecticut Natural Gas (CNG) and Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) rate case back to PURA for a new hearing, and found that “the procedural errors and irregularities set forth below have so permeated the proceedings, evidence and record below as to undermine the fundamental fairness of the proceedings,” and that, “PURA must consider the underlying rate applications anew; as if newly filed.”

The CNG and SCG rate appeal, however, was only one case; the utility companies have identified 672 “substantive rulings” on dockets since 2020 that affect both companies, and 275 rulings that “have made significant legal and/or factual determinations that have prejudiced those plaintiff’s rights and constitutionally protected property interests,” in a separate lawsuit brought by Eversource and Avangrid against PURA.

“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 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,” attorneys for Eversource and Avangrid wrote in their court complaint.

The utilities’ lawsuit has now been narrowed down by the court to only the commissioners – PURA and the State of Connecticut being let off the hook under government immunity – but PURA’s admission to having violated state statutes and procedures in Avangrid’s gas rate case could fuel additional appeals of decisions made years ago in which statutes and procedures were similarly violated.

The Attorney General’s Office – whose assistant attorney general was referred by Judge Budzik to the statewide grievance committee to determine whether he misled the court by concealing documents from discovery – says they “cannot respond to hypothetical legal challenges,” and PURA did not respond to a request for comment.

The governor’s office, in a problematic attempt to defend Gillett in 2025, identified 6,133 motion rulings by PURA since 2019, but only listed eleven motions, interim decisions, and final decisions in which there was a dissenting vote; they claim the rest of the decisions were all unanimous. While interim and final decisions always receive recorded votes, the claim that potentially thousands of motions decisions were “unanimous” may not be supportable in the record.

Although three of the four motion decisions listed by the governor’s office contained recorded votes and commissioner signatures, there were no meeting minutes, and the decision dates did not match up with PURA records. The fourth motion decision was issued under the executive secretary’s name and included no other commissioner’s signatures.

Gillett’s statutory violations ranged from violating the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act to violating the state’s Freedom of Information Act over at least three years, as utility companies, PURA commissioners, and Republicans repeatedly warned Gov. Ned Lamont that his hand-picked chairman was operating outside the bounds of her regulatory authority.

Lamont, however, brushed off the warnings as signs that Gillett was “holding utility companies accountable.” Following the court’s ruling and PURA conceding that it violated state statute, that accountability could go both ways, and PURA’s legal trouble may be far from over.

Budzik did not allow for further discovery or the deposition of Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, and Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, to determine whether Gillett had assisted them with drafting a “preposterous” op-ed. The Hartford Courant uncovered text messages between Steinberg and Gillett discussing a “draft,” shortly before publication of the op-ed. 

Since the case was a rate appeal, and PURA conceded the case was not handled properly, no further discovery was necessary.

The attempted “slow-motion coverup” of PURA’s multitude of violations included withholding documents from both discovery and from the Freedom of Information Commission; Gillett and her Chief of Staff setting their phones to auto-delete text messages; Steinberg and Needleman’s refusal to turn over the “draft” in question; a purported backroom deal to get Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, to support Gillett’s renomination; and multiple attempts to pass legislation that would have rendered Gillett’s actions legal.

“For ten months, PURA’s attorneys vociferously argued that Ms. Gillett’s conduct was legal,” Budzik wrote in a footnote. “One month after Ms. Gillett’s resignation and just one week after a new PURA leadership was nominated, PURA’s attorneys unceremoniously abandoned their previously stated legal positions and admitted that Ms. Gillett’s actions were improper. The result is a remand for an entirely new hearing, a delay in the resolution of an important rate making application, and harm to the public interest.”

Republish This Story

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