Connecticut’s major utility companies, Eversource and Avangrid, are fighting a nuanced administrative battle with Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), claiming PURA Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has secretly issued thousands of decisions under the cover of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi’s signature block, essentially making herself “the Authority,” according to docket filings, letters, Freedom of Information requests, and court documents.

The utility companies claim Gillett has appointed herself presiding officer in all matters that come before PURA and has used this designation to issue substantive decisions affecting both the utility companies and ratepayers under Gaudiosi’s signature block, effectively hiding the fact that it was a decision of the presiding officer, rather than the commission as a whole.

Connecticut’s regulatory check on utility companies means they must file motions with PURA to build new projects, make repairs, issue new contracts, change their rates – virtually anything that may affect ratepayers’ wallets. PURA’s final decisions are a vote by all commissioners and contain the executive secretary’s signature block, along with the results of the vote and all the commissioners’ signatures.

The utility companies claim that in the past Gaudiosi’s signature block alone – without any commissioner names or signatures – meant a decision was made “by the Authority,” and was reserved for administrative and “ministerial” decisions, like requesting a deadline extension. 

However, they contend that since 2020 that signature block has also meant a decision by Gillett acting as presiding officer, giving the impression that thousands of decisions were made by the full Authority, rather than the presiding officer alone. It matters because a decision by the presiding officer (or rather the hearing officer — more on that later) can be appealed for a vote by all the commissioners. In their view, the utility companies have essentially been deceived by Gillett who has taken it upon herself to act as “the Authority” under Gaudiosi’s signature.

The issue has largely been fought through a series of docket filings and letters from Avangrid’s attorneys to PURA over a gas rate case after both Eversource and Avangrid noticed Gaudiosi’s signature attached to substantive decisions when no vote had been taken by PURA members. The issue has been raised to Gov. Ned Lamont in a meeting between utility providers, the governor, and the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), which oversees PURA. Naturally, everyone had their attorneys present.

Freedom of Information requests made by the utility companies to DEEP for “records of any and all votes taken by the PURA commissioners” for six motions filed in Avangrid’s gas rate case revealed there were none. A second request for internal communications concerning those motions was denied by DEEP, saying they were “preliminary drafts or notes,” and therefore exempt from FOI laws. Several other FOI requests are pending.

Thus far, PURA and Connecticut’s Office of the Attorney General have brushed off these claims as “much ado about nothing,” in response to an August 23 letter sent by Avangrid attorney Daniel Venora that questioned the legality of Gaudiosi’s signature on substantive decisions.

PURA wrote – somewhat cheekily under Gaudiosi’s signature again – that the utility companies were confused; that it was “long-standing practice” and “all procedural, evidentiary, and other intermediate rulings in a contested proceeding are issued by the presiding officer and are not delegated to the Executive Secretary.”

“Notwithstanding this custom, it is but a truism that the presiding officer, not the Executive Secretary, conducts PURA’s proceedings – a self-evident maxim so grounded in statute, regulation, and practice that it requires no explanation,” “Gaudiosi” wrote. “As such, the Companies’ confusion as to the respective roles of the presiding officer and the Authority’s Executive Secretary seems largely contrived and much ado about nothing. Importantly, the customary signature block causes no prejudice to the Companies substantive or procedural rights and has no legal effect on the presiding officer’s rulings.”

The utility companies, however, don’t think of it as “much ado about nothing,” particularly when facing credit downgrades that specifically cite Connecticut’s regulatory environment. Avangrid’s two gas utilities and Eversource saw their credit ratings lowered in December of 2024, prompting both utilities to lay blame on PURA. 

While the average Connecticut ratepayer – already paying some of the highest utility costs in the country – may revel in the fact that PURA is sticking it to the utilities, those lower credit ratings mean it may actually cost ratepayers more for future infrastructure improvements, repairs, and the state’s transition to cleaner energy. 

Connecticut’s Office of Consumer Counsel – and consumer counsel offices in other states – acknowledged the rating decrease could increase future costs, but brushed off the utilities’ claims as “alarmist,” essentially reminding them their rates can only change with PURA’s permission.

House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, said the credit downgrades are “a clear rebuke of toxic regulatory environment fostered by the Lamont administration and legislative Democrats.” 

“They ignore the heavy cost associated with their policies and mandates on utilities, while at the same time delaying the recovery of the costs,” Candelora said. “If these utilities decide to pull out of Connecticut, the state’s energy future grows even bleaker. The financial markets, an impartial judge, have made their verdict clear: these policies are unsustainable and will drive our state further into an affordability crisis.”

Part of the regulatory environment affecting Connecticut’s utilities is the issue with Gaudiosi’s signature and whether thousands of motions filed by utility companies were administered properly or were, instead, the decisions of one person. It affects not just Eversource and Avangrid, but also smaller solar developers, energy suppliers, telecom companies and ratepayers.

Had the companies known that Gaudiosi’s signature was conferring a decision by the presiding officer and not the entire Authority, the company could have — and say they would have — appealed for a vote by all three commissioners. Instead, they had to wait until the matter ended and file their appeal in superior court.

While this all sounds like boring, legal hairsplitting that only affects multi-billion-dollar corporate utility companies, that is not always the case; it directly affects ratepayers, too. Decisions have been issued by Gillett, under Gaudiosi’s signature, that have cost ratepayers’ money or have delayed the return of ratepayer money through reduced utility rates.

On April 24, 2023, the chairmen of the General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, sent a letter to Gillett asking her to extend the state’s COVID-era shutoff moratorium until October 31, 2023, claiming it will “ensure that families who are struggling financially do not have to face the added stress of disconnection during these difficult times,” despite earlier COVID restrictions being lifted and the country returning to normal work routines.

Three days later, a ruling was issued that extended the shut-off moratorium until May 2, 2024, which included the statutory winter shutoff protections. That one decision added an additional $70 million to ratepayers tab to cover the nonpayment of residents’ electric bills. That tab was later collected as part of a massive increase to the public benefits charge on ratepayers’ bills, sparking prolonged public outrage, political finger pointing and a renewed interest in how Connecticut utilities are regulated.

That $70 million decision, however, was signed not by the PURA Commissioners, but by Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi. There was no official vote by the commissioners; it was solely the decision of the presiding officer, Marissa Gillett. One wouldn’t know that reading the decision which explicitly states numerous times it is a decision by “the Authority.”

“The Authority grants Motion No. 88, and accordingly, extends the Shut-Off Moratorium until October 31, 2023,” Gillett wrote using Gaudiosi’s signature.

Although the shut-off moratorium decision is likely the most easily understood and visible example of how these legally questionable decisions can affect Connecticut residents, it is not the only one.

In 2022, a decision signed by all PURA commissioners terminated Connecticut’s nearly decade-long natural gas expansion. Normally, that meant revenue tied to the sale of interstate natural gas pipeline capacity could be returned to natural gas ratepayers through the Purchased Gas Adjustment clause, but the Authority said that revenue would not be credited back to customers but rather held back to offset future rate increases.

While Eversource and Avangrid did not object to terminating the natural gas expansion, they did file a motion for reconsideration to return the money to ratepayers immediately through a credit on their bills. This motion for reconsideration was rejected in June of 2022 by Gillett under Gaudiosi’s signature block: “The Authority denies Motion No. 26.”

It wasn’t until 2024 that the revenue credit was returned to ratepayers. The whole issue created cash flow problems for the utilities and was specifically cited by S&P as contributing to the credit rating decrease for Avangrid’s gas companies: “CNG to implement an $8 million annual credit to ratepayers over three years as a result of surplus revenues from gas sales and hardship revenues.”

Adding to the questionable legality of the decision to withhold millions in customer credits for two years, is that under Connecticut statute, an agency decision made after reconsideration “shall become the final decision in a contested case in lieu of the original final decision for purposes of appeal,” even if reconsideration was requested but not granted. Final decisions must be signed by a majority of commissioners, however, and the utilities argue that in this case there were no signatures other than Gaudiosi’s.

According to numbers provided by Eversource, since January 2020, approximately 5,000 motion rulings across 535 dockets were issued with only Gaudiosi’s signature block. Of that number, they determined that roughly 1,000 were substantive decisions that included factual findings and legal conclusions purportedly by the Authority.

Less than ten were signed by all three commissioners, leaving the possibility that a single presiding officer has issued nearly one thousand rulings on substantive issues while disguising that ruling as one made by the entire commission under the executive secretary’s signature.

In the August 23 letter to Gaudiosi, attorney for Avangrid, Daniel P. Venora points out that an August 16 decision issued under Gaudiosi’s name contained factual findings purportedly by “the Authority,” and notes that one motion was “addressed to the full panel of Commissioners,” because the utility company had “growing concern as to the actual validity of ‘the Authority’s’ decisions on the Companies’ motions.”

Avangrid had accused Gillett of bias and ex parte communications with the Office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE). PURA’s response was that it found “no credible evidence of ex parte communications between the Chair and EOE,” and no credible evidence of bias. It was signed by Gaudiosi alone.

“As was the case with all previous rulings you issued during the proceeding, the August 16th Decision purported to be issued on behalf of ‘the Authority.’ This Decision denied the Companies’ Motion No. 116 on substantive grounds, vastly exceeding any form of ministerial procedural ruling,” Venora wrote. “The August 16th Decision therefore renders ‘findings’ of ‘the Authority’ that appear to be beyond the scope of your role as Executive Secretary. Without a proper delegation of authority from the PURA commissioners, it would appear that this decision is improper, invalid and void.” 

Essentially, Avangrid accused Chairman Gillett of bias and improper communications and, based on PURA’s response, it appears Gillett investigated herself and found nothing wrong – at least as far as anyone can tell because the FOI request asking for any records and votes taken by PURA commissioners in reference to that motion returned nothing.

In an October 25, 2024, filing, Avangrid highlighted the fact that its gas companies’ credit ratings had been downgraded to “negative” due to the “unpredictable” regulatory environment and doubled down on their allegation of bias and actions by the chairwoman that are “contrary to administrative process and Connecticut law.”

“The Companies recognize the seriousness of these concerns and do not raise them lightly,” the attorneys wrote before a listing off six issues “to be preserved for appeal.” 

They included Gaudiosi’s signature on all intermediate rulings that were issued “solely by the Presiding Officer;” documented ex parte communications between the presiding officer and EOE director; improper withholding of public records; and flawed procedural and substantive rulings that “prejudiced the Companies’ ability to conduct their case and obviated the Companies opportunity to have the full Commission review the Presiding Officer rulings due to the false representations therein that the rulings were by “the Authority.’”

On December 17, 2024, United Illuminating filed an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commission alleging PURA is withholding a document they claim they know exists: an email from Gillett to PURA personnel “stating that Chairman Gillett will act as Presiding Officer on any or all matters coming before PURA.”

“The agency has not denied the existence of any documents responsive to the request, nor has it asserted any exemptions for any of the requested records. Nonetheless, PURA has failed to provide the responsive records,” attorney Thomas J. Murphy wrote. “Upon information and belief, PURA’s withholding of this documentation is knowing and intentional. UIL and other utilities have objected to actions and positions taken by PURA and Chairman Gillett that failed to adhere to PURA’s statutory obligations to discharge its quasi-judicial oversight of utilities in a fair and impartial manner.”

The utility companies also cite an email directive sent out by PURA General Counsel Scott Muska in an August 2022 notice to utility companies indicating that any filings that require approval by PURA should be filed as a motion, thus giving the presiding officer power to approve or deny those requests.

According to the utility companies’ argument, since Gillett is the presiding officer in every docket and everything must be filed as a motion in all dockets, and the presiding officer decides all intermediary rulings, issuing those decisions under the executive secretary’s signature and attributing them to “the Authority,” thousands of motions across hundreds of dockets over four years have been legally tainted.

Much of this debate hinges on the statutory definitions of a “presiding officer,” and a “hearing officer,” and the powers granted under those definitions. It appears those two definitions have been conflated both in statute and practice by nearly everybody, despite PURA’s contention that they are distinct and different.

According to state statute, the PURA chair may assign a panel of three commissioners to a matter coming before PURA, and those commissioners may, if they choose, “assign a hearing officer to ascertain the facts and report thereon to the panel.” The panel then issues the final decision. Nowhere in that statute does it say that the commissioner may appoint themselves hearing officer in every case, nor does it mention a presiding officer – a position that is defined as part of the state’s Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.

In response to a series of questions posed by Inside Investigator, PURA Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications Taren O’Connor said that Gillett “will generally designate herself as the presiding officer,” but denies that Gillett has been the presiding officer in every docket. Although PURA does not “explicitly track panel assignments,” O’Connor offered up three examples in which Commissioner John Betkoski and Commissioner Michael Caron acted as presiding officer for a docket.

O’Connor also said the two terms “hearing officer” and “presiding officer,” are not the same and “carry distinct legal definitions and procedural implications.” She said that Gillett “does not act as the hearing officer,” and that hearing officers are rarely used by PURA; when a hearing officer is assigned the officer is generally a staff member. 

“In all cases, under General Statutes § 4-166(13), the presiding officer is the commissioner designated by the head of the Agency (which, for PURA, is the Chair) to preside at a hearing of the panel of commissioners,” O’Connor wrote. “Regardless of the presiding officer designation, the full panel of commissioners remains assigned to the matter and is expected to participate in both the proceeding and commissioner deliberations. All final decisions of the Authority require at least a majority of affirmative votes from the panel.”

As far as the three-person panel assigned to each matter, since there have only been three commissioners for most of the last four years, every matter has been assigned to the entire Authority by default, and since Gillett is head of the Authority, it essentially becomes her responsibility to run the meetings and hearings.

The full definition of “presiding officer” under the state statute, however, appears to conflate the terms “hearing officer” and “presiding officer. A presiding officer is defined as “the member of an agency or the hearing officer designated by the head of the agency to preside at the hearing.”

According to O’Connor and statute, a presiding officer, “has the authority and responsibility to conduct proceedings in an orderly manner. This includes, among other things, the power to grant party or intervenor status, limit participation in a proceeding, grant extensions of time, subpoena witnesses, require the production of records, and grant immunity for testimony.” 

O’Connor says a presiding officer’s decision can be modified or reversed by the panel of commissioners. “Because of this, the presiding officer will generally ensure a consensus before ruling,” O’Connor said.

However, the UAPA makes no mention of a presiding officer issuing intermediary rulings or having their decisions overturned by the commission; that appears as part of the definitions of a “hearing officer.”

According to state statute, in a contested case before a hearing officer a party can request a review by the full panel of commissioners “of any preliminary, procedural, or evidentiary ruling.” It is also the hearing officer that issues the proposed final decision if one is assigned to a docket by the panel of three commissioners.

However, in PURA’s response to Avangrid’s FOI request, the agency indicated it had no records of commissioner votes on six motions because, “all procedural, evidentiary, and other intermediate rulings in a contested proceeding are issued by the presiding officer.”

In essence, it appears Gillett has taken on both roles of presiding officer and hearing officer and the utility companies argue she is therefore controlling the entire regulatory body, issuing decisions under Gaudiosi’s signature block to convey the full power of the Authority, rather than the authority of a presiding officer or hearing officer.

In 2023, a massive energy regulatory bill brought by the Energy and Technology Committee sought to change in state statute how hearing officers were assigned by PURA. Senate Bill 7 would have allowed the PURA chairperson “to assign any matter before the authority to one or more utility commissioners, rather than to a panel of three or more commissioners as under prior law and gives the assigned commissioners the same powers that the panels currently have,” according to the bill summary.

That language, which would have made it statutorily feasible for the chair to assign all matters to herself, was repealed in 2023’s budget implementer, reverting to the original language — a panel of three who could vote to assign a hearing officer.

One thing Senate Bill 7 did do, however, was change statutory language to ensure the governor determines who is chair of PURA, protecting Gillett from potentially being replaced by the other commissioners through a vote.

For their part, PURA is circling the wagons on this issue and say they’ve already consulted with the Office of the Attorney General “on the role of the presiding officer in agency proceedings, and the OAG agreed that the presiding officer has the authority to issue procedural and intermediary rulings,” O’Connor wrote.

Attorney General William Tong is no fan of Connecticut’s utility companies, often weighing in with very public press releases and press conferences when rate cases are filed or decided.

O’Connor also cited oral argument in the gas rate case during which Assistant Attorney General John Wright called Avangrid’s claims “nonsense,” “beyond silly,” and “a nothing burger,” among many other negative descriptions of the utility company’s argument.

“The Company has made very serious allegations,” Wright said. “And we submit that these serious allegations were made on the contextual and manufactured evidence. They’re disingenuous.”

Wright also made the point that if every motion had to be decided by the entire commission, rather than just the presiding officer, the process would grind to a halt. “It’s just not a serious argument,” Wright said. “And yet the companies darkly suggest that this is an improper falsehood intended somehow to harm the companies.”

“PURA continues to follow the decades-old practice of issuing correspondence, notices, and procedural and intermediary rulings with the executive secretary’s signature affixed to the document. The utilities never previously objected to this practice nor raised any concerns as to the procedural propriety,” O’Connor wrote. “The Authority complies strictly with all procedural and due process requirements. The utility companies have the right to seek an administrative appeal of any final decision and to raise any claims, including due process claims, in that appeal.”

The utility companies do not dispute that the use of a presiding officer on dockets has been a long-standing one; their issue, however, is that the executive secretary’s signature was previously used for ministerial and administrative issues, not substantive ones, and that decisions made by the presiding officer were known by all parties and the public and were subject to appeal to the full Authority prior to the final decision. 

Attorney for Avangrid, Cheryl Kimball, laid out the utility’s argument in response to Assistant Attorney General Wright’s “nothing burger” comments. She agreed that having the commission decide on every motion would delay proceedings and argued that is not what Avangrid is suggesting. Rather it comes down to a matter of transparency.

“What we are suggesting is that the use of the Executive Secretary rulings may have been fine in the past. They were fairly ministerial. They weren’t for every single decision,” Kimball said. “Clearly a Presiding Officer has some room to make rulings, but you have to say it’s the Presiding Officer, because there’s other things that flow from that. So no, we are not asking that every motion be decided by the Commission. We’re asking just to have transparency. If the Presiding Officer is ruling, just say that. Don’t use the Gaudiosi signature block.”

“In light of the fact that courts have continued to affirm the Authority’s recent decisions, it is unsurprising (if not expected) that the utilities would now attempt to raise procedural complaints,” O’Connor wrote, adding that it’s “a de facto acknowledgement that their substantive arguments lack merit or are manifestly anemic.”

Anemic or not, it has certainly gained the attention of House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora, who held a press conference on December 19 after the latest round of credit downgrades for Connecticut’s utilities, calling on Gov. Ned Lamont to appoint a full five-member commission as required by law and decide on reappoints for the current members whose terms have expired. 

Candelora argued it has become obvious that there is a problem in PURA, evidenced by the fact that until the past two years hardly anyone paid attention to them. He argued that having every member the Authority serving at the pleasure of the governor has politicized what should be an independent regulatory body.

He also singled out Gillett as essentially taking over the Authority and keeping the other commissioners in the dark.

“You can’t deny the fact that there is a problem here,” Candelora said. “That Authority is running as a dictatorship; it’s not running as regulatory body with five members making decision. You have an individual that is taking every single docket, she is controlling every single docket and ultimately making those decisions, and the rest are put in the dark and brought out to vote. And that’s not the way that agency was supposed to operate.”

In a statement emailed to Inside Investigator prior to Candelora’s comments – but addressing the same issues that were raised by the utility companies – Gillett said she takes “offense” to the idea that she is single-handedly running PURA.

“On behalf of my two distinguished, long-standing colleagues, Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski and Commissioner Michael Caron, who have served as utility regulators for a combined 40 years, I take offense to any implication that they were absentee commissioners and not equal partners in PURA’s stellar work product over the past five years – work product that is consistently being affirmed by the Courts,” Gillett said. “To negate my colleagues’ years of public service by implying that, despite being outnumbered, I was able to make decisions unilaterally for over five years is not supported by the evidence or common sense.”

According to PURA, the other commissioners are very much involved in the docket process, with the ability to review proposed final decisions through a shared platform and attend monthly sector meetings in which staff give “comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before the agency.”

“Commissioners always have the ability to coordinate a meeting with decisional staff through PURA’s Chief of Staff, as well as partake in scheduled briefings and deliberations,” O’Connor wrote. “Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place regularly until they were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.”

PURA Vice Chair Betkoski reiterated the line that this is all “much ado about nothing,” and said, “the executive secretary’s signature has always been affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a docket,” in an emailed statement. Newly appointed commissioner David Arconti said his fellow PURA commissioners “have been collaborative and accommodating.” 

“I agree with my colleagues,” Arconti said in an emailed statement. “The utilities are better served by returning their focus to the substantive work in front of us.”

When Gillett approved the extension of the COVID-era shutoff moratorium, it added at least $70 million onto an already substantial tab for Connecticut ratepayers after PURA had let years’ worth of public benefits charges pile up. O’Connor says that no one filed an objection to the motion, and the other commissioners said nothing, so Gillett went ahead with approval, acting as the presiding officer. 

“As such, the presiding officer issued a ruling, the ruling was not subsequently modified by a majority of commissioners assigned to the proceeding as is their right, and the ruling was not appealed or challenged by any party or intervenor,” O’Connor wrote. “In summary, the motion was fully considered by the panel of commissioners and resolved with no one opposing or appealing the determination. Any attempt to characterize this as a procedural error would ignore both the facts and applicable law.”

The public, however, largely indifferent to nuances of administrative procedure, did object when the public benefits charge on their electric bills spiked. Connecticut has always had higher energy rates than most of the country, but in the past year it has taken on a new political dimension, putting PURA in the news perhaps more than they would like. While utility companies and PURA have had their disagreements in the past, recent clashes between the utilities and Connecticut’s regulators appear to be coming to a head and have spilled over into the public eye. 

The same day Candelora held his press conference about the credit rating downgrades for Connecticut’s utilities, Sen. Norm Needleman, D-Essex, and Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, chairs of the General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee, penned an op-ed for CT Mirror alleging the credit rating agencies were unduly influenced by Eversource and Avangrid, and that warnings about possible higher costs in the future were “propaganda.”

“To suggest that these ratings agencies are independent, or objective is nonsensical. The utility itself can pass through the cost of debt to its captive customers, so what does the utility care if it becomes the company that cries wolf and provokes a downgrade in pursuit of its grander strategy to warn regulators across New England not to replicate the accountability measures and rate decreases imposed by its Connecticut regulators?,” Needleman and Steinberg wrote. “Let’s face the facts: could S&P’s downgrade of the Avangrid and Eversource companies raise rates in Connecticut? That’s an overwhelming: Maybe.”

As much as Gillett and the other commissioners may wish this issue about Gaudiosi’s signature to go away, the utility companies, citing those credit downgrades, are not taking this at all lightly. Connecticut lawmakers, PURA, and the public are about to find out whether use of Gaudiosi’s signature by the presiding officer is in violation of state statute and administrative practice, or if it truly is “much ado about nothing.” 

On December 19, Avangrid used their right to appeal and filed two petitions in Connecticut Superior Court, appealing PURA’s rate reduction decisions for The Southern Connecticut Gas Company and the Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation. Included in the appeal is a recitation of Avangrid’s claims about Gillett issuing decisions under the guise of “the Authority” using Gaudiosi’s signature.

“The Final Decision is tainted by a series of highly unusual procedural irregularities that prejudiced SCG and demand reversal. Over the course of the proceeding, serious concerns arose regarding the use of unlawful procedures, ex parte communications and other improper conduct by the PURA Chairman,” the appeal states. “The unlawful procedures included the issuance of several important substantive ‘motion rulings’ under the signature block of PURA’s Executive Secretary, Jeffrey Gaudiosi. All of these ‘Executive Secretary’ rulings were ostensibly issued on behalf of ‘the Authority’ and the ‘Public Utilities Regulatory Authority,’ although it was later revealed that these rulings were issued unilaterally by the PURA Chairman, unbeknownst to the Company… All of the rulings were presented as if the full panel of three PURA members were issuing the ruling.” 

PURA not only faces Avangrid and Eversource in court over these matters, but is also facing an appeal by the Communication Workers of America (CWA) labor union, who argue PURA has essentially mandated that Frontier use third-party, non-union contractors to address its backlog of telephone pole repairs.

In support of CWA, the leaders of five other labor unions wrote a letter to Gov. Lamont and Attorney General William Tong requesting a meeting to address the regulatory agency’s decisions that they say undercut collective bargaining agreements.

“It is unacceptable for a state government body to step in and nullify the hard-earned benefit in agreements we already negotiated and won with our employers,” the letter to Lamont and Tong states. “Yet that is exactly what PURA has done and continues to do.”

“While I may carry the title of chairman, which carries with it the awesome responsibility to marshal the administrative duties of the agency, each of us carries the title of commissioner and wields an equally weighted vote (as indeed I have been outvoted on several occasions),” Gillett said in her statement to Inside Investigator. “I look forward to putting these unsubstantiated accusations behind us all and returning to the important work ahead.” 

Republish This Story

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