PURA fires back at Avangrid for demanding that the chairperson withdraw from the CT collective bargaining process

The state commission for regulating utilities has rejected allegations by energy giant Avangrid that its chief executive was biased and had to recuse himself from a wage dispute. Its ruling was unusually harsh and calls into question the company's credibility.

“The motions are so devoid of evidence, so devoid of legal basis, and so obviously an attempt to advance a particular agenda that the filing of the motions raises questions about the sincerity and credibility of the attorneys before the court,” wrote Jeffrey R. Gaudiosi, executive secretary of the Public Utility Regulatory Authority.

Gaudiosi signed PURA's blunt response to a motion filed this month to bar Chair Marissa Gillett from any further involvement in a rates dispute involving Avangrid subsidiaries Connecticut Natural Gas and Southern New England Gas.

PURA's response to the gas companies' unusual attempt to remove the regulator's chair from a rate case suggests that hostilities between the state's largest utilities and PURA have not cooled under the chairmanship of Gillett, the agency's appointee by Governor Ned Lamont.

Eversource and United Illuminating argue that their financial stability is threatened by arbitrary and, in some cases, illegal regulatory decisions that prevent them from repaying the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend annually on everything from storm damage repairs to government-mandated clean energy programs like electric vehicle chargers.

Gillett's supporters have said they believe utilities have become too entrenched in an outdated regulatory system, so she is building a system of financial incentives that penalizes utilities for questionable spending and rewards them for savings and customer service.

The heated exchanges come amid ongoing protests by electricity customers and politicians against a Public State Administration (PURA)-approved increase in the public benefit portion of Connecticut's electricity bills – the portion of the bill that reimburses utilities for money the state requires them to spend on social welfare, environmental and other programs.

Outrage over CT electricity bill increase has politicians looking for ways to lower prices

The rate increase, which will now appear on bills for 10 months, will allow Eversource and United Illuminating to recoup costs associated with the state's obligation to purchase electricity from Dominion Energy's Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford and to fund a rebate program that encourages the switch from gasoline to electric vehicles.

Over the weekend, the state's congressional delegation joined the protest. The five Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives called on PURA to reopen the rate case and extend the period during which the rate increase is in effect, a move that would reduce the increase in monthly bills but would force customers to pay more over a longer period of time.

In response to proposals from the state's consumer protection agency, both utilities said they would support a comprehensive review of the way electricity prices are set in Connecticut. But both questioned whether regulators have the legal authority to roll back the price increases they have already approved, regardless of consumer protests.

In his strongly worded response to Avangrid's gas subsidiaries, Gaudiosi denies all three allegations made by the companies: that Gillett was biased; that it engaged in inappropriate, one-sided or confidential email exchanges with a party in a collective bargaining process; and that it treated the companies unfairly in its rulings.

Gaudiosi said the allegations against Gillett “appear to be a continuation” of a “public campaign” against Gillett and “her leadership of the agency.” He described the attack as an attempt to prevent a price cut for one of the gas subsidiaries, which appears to be making higher profits than forecast in previous pricing proceedings.

“However, unlike the companies' press releases, opinion pieces and lobbying efforts, a motion in a contentious administrative proceeding is a legal document subject to evidentiary standards and codes of conduct,” Gaudiosi wrote. “The motions appear to satisfy neither one nor the other.”

Regarding the email exchange between Gillett and a party in the collective bargaining hearing concerning an issue raised in the testimony, Gaudiosi wrote: “A review of the emails shows that the communications were irrelevant and immaterial to all of the issues addressed in the collective bargaining process.”

In addition to seeking Gillett's recusal, the gas companies also sought to block evidence and reopen the case. Gaudiosi denied all of the motions, which could lead to further disputes because the utilities contend that only the agency's three commissioners – not the executive secretary – have the authority to rule on substantive issues.