The forthcoming resignation of Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) Chair Marissa Gillett has created high-stakes questions around the state’s adoption of a comprehensive performance-based regulation (PBR) framework, with three key votes set to occur just two days before Gillett is scheduled to step down.
Gillett, who has frequently drawn the ire of the state’s investor-owned utilities, announced her resignation Sept. 19 after a prolonged pressure campaign by utilities and Connecticut Republicans, writing that “the escalation of disputes into a cycle of lawsuits and press statements pulls attention and resources away from what matters most: keeping rates just and reasonable, improving service and planning a resilient, reliable energy future.”
The disputes have “exacted a real emotional toll both for me personally, as well as my family, and for my team,” Gillett said, adding that “there is only so much that one individual can reasonably endure, or ask of their family, while doing their best to serve our state.”
The day prior, on Sept. 18, Connecticut House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora called for an impeachment inquiry into whether Gillett lied during her February confirmation hearing about the existence of a directive requiring that “staff support for commissioners be directed through her.”
Her resignation, which will take effect Oct. 10, comes as PURA works to finalize a set of major regulatory changes intended to better align utility incentives with customer benefits.
Gillett began her tenure as chair of PURA in 2019, making headlines by presiding over several rulings that significantly limited revenue increases for utilities or ordered revenue decreases.
With Gillett at the helm, PURA decreased the revenue requirements in rate cases for the Aquarion Water Co. and a pair of Avangrid-owned gas utilities, significantly limited a proposed United Illuminating electric rate increase and issued major fines on the state’s electric utilities for poor performance responding to Tropical Storm Isaias in 2020.
According to Gillett’s critics, she fostered an unfavorable investment climate for utilities, hurting their credit ratings and disincentivizing investments in the state’s grid. In recent months, Connecticut Republicans argued she overstepped the limits of her authority, and Eversource Energy and Avangrid alleged in lawsuits that Gillett held a personal bias against the companies.
Following the news of her resignation, Eversource’s stock price spiked by about 8%. Equity analysts at Jefferies Research Services called the news a “clear positive” for the company, writing that Connecticut “has been one of the most challenging U.S. regulatory jurisdictions for the past decade.”
But according to her supporters, Gillett was extremely effective at pushing back against unjustified utility costs and rate increases, making her a target of utility companies.
Reacting to the news, David Pomerantz, executive director of the Energy and Policy Institute (EPI), a utility watchdog nonprofit, called Gillett “possibly the best utility regulator in the country,” saying she “joins the long list of regulators who have attempted to lower rates and confront utility profits, and lost their jobs for it.”
“I think Chair Gillett — more than any other utility regulator in the country, state or federal — was really enacting a reform agenda that could lower rates, and in doing so, was challenging the utilities and their investors on Wall Street to earn their profits in a different way,” Pomerantz said.
Performance-based Regulation
Beyond specific ratemaking proceedings, much of Gillett’s tenure has focused on PBR development in the state. The shift to PBR was initiated by the legislature, which in 2020 directed PURA to develop a comprehensive PBR framework after Tropical Storm Isaias triggered extended power outages.
PURA approved a more general set of goals, considerations and key outcomes for PBR in 2023 (21-05-15) and is nearing final votes on three follow-up dockets to establish specific performance metrics, revenue adjustment mechanisms and integrated distribution system planning requirements.
Throughout the process, utilities have criticized PURA frequently for failing to adequately consider their input, while environmental and consumer groups praised the agency for taking a collaborative approach. (See The Rocky Road to Performance-based Regulation in Connecticut.)
PURA issued draft decisions in each of the three second-phase dockets in July and August (RE01, RE02, RE03). Final decisions for each of the three dockets are scheduled for Oct. 8, two days before Gillett is set to resign.
Noah Berman, utility innovation program manager at the Acadia Center, said he would be “surprised to see a major pivot” in the PBR dockets from the proposed rulings.
“The question is whether the utilities decide to act in good faith on what is being established, or to put aside the years of work that have gone into these frameworks in favor of trying to delay and relitigate under a new chair,” Berman said.
He expressed concern about a “post-resignation inquiry” that Avangrid submitted in the three PBR dockets, which argues Gillett “must have no further involvement” in all open dockets involving the company.
“Chairperson Gillett’s multiple public statements evidencing bias and prejudgment of issues that she is required by law to adjudicate on an impartial basis are well known and are already the subject of pending litigation,” Avangrid wrote. It added that, following the impeachment inquiry and Gillett’s resignation, “if there was any doubt as to whether Chairperson Gillett could fairly adjudicate any of our matters, it is now extinguished.”
Gillett’s involvement in remaining proceedings, including the open PBR dockets, “will not only compound existing legal challenges to PURA’s conduct but will result in new, unnecessary litigation,” Avangrid wrote.
The company added it has “credible concerns about the conduct and bias of other high-ranking PURA personnel,” and asked PURA to explain “what steps the agency will be taking to ensure that PURA staff who are unable to be objective about our matters are not hereafter involved in those matters.”
Both Eversource and Avangrid declined to comment directly on Gillett’s resignation, or the effects it will have on utility regulation in the state. The companies have denied all allegations that they attacked Gillett personally.
Clean energy and utility accountability advocates have been quick to push back on the allegations of impropriety or bias by Gillett and PURA staff.
“Nothing produced from the utility-led [Freedom of Information Act] campaign against Gillett showed anything but a regulator resolute in her commitment to ratepayers,” Pomerantz of EPI argued.
He added that, in 2022, Avangrid’s CEO allegedly offered to provide Gillett with opportunities for “international exposure” in advance of a rate case, while simultaneously threatening to pull investment in the state in the event of an unfavorable decision. Avangrid has denied any wrongdoing.
In an interview, Pomerantz said Gillett’s replacement as chair, along with regulators selected to fill two additional open commissioner seats at PURA, will have a major influence on how PBR is used in the state.
“Performance-based regulation, generally speaking, is really only as good as the regulators that are there to implement it,” Pomerantz said.
While PURA’s PBR framework would be “best-in-class in the country,” if the framework ultimately is approved, it will be “up to a new PURA and a new chair to decide how to implement that new regulatory model over time,” he said.
Lindsay Griffin, Northeast regulatory director for Vote Solar, said the “utilities’ resistance to PBR is entirely predictable,” noting that it would introduce revenue penalties for poor performance, along with bonuses for strong performance.
“With Chair Gillett’s departure, implementing robust performance-based regulation becomes more critical than ever,” Griffin said. “PBR represents the institutional safeguard that can continue protecting ratepayers even when regulatory leadership changes.”
Broader Implications
Griffin also expressed concern about the ripple effects Gillett’s resignation could have on utility regulation throughout the country.
“This resignation sends a chilling message: that sustained legal warfare and public pressure campaigns can drive exceptionally qualified public servants from office when they hold powerful interests accountable,” Griffin said.
She emphasized the importance of “robust regulatory scrutiny,” adding that utilities “should embrace regulatory oversight, not weaponize litigation to silence it.”
Pomerantz offered a similar sentiment, adding that he thinks the “rest of the utility industry will be very happy to attempt to use [Gillett] as an example, to say to any other regulator, or potentially a governor, that ‘we can do that to you too.’”
He said other regulators also appear to have been pushed out of their jobs after clashing with utility companies, citing Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s decision to replace Alessandra Carreon on the Michigan Public Service Commission with a political staffer who had worked for a former Michigan House speaker who took large campaign contributions from utility executives.
Instead of feeling intimidated by Gillett’s resignation, Pomerantz expressed his hope that regulators across the country will have the opposite reaction.
“It would be really nice if more of the regulatory community took offense to what the utilities have done here in Connecticut and felt galvanized by it,” Pomerantz said. “I don’t know if that’s happening or not.”
