From: O"Connor, Taren

To: Gillett, Marissa; Muska, Scott; Govert, Theresa

Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:18:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-tltlqv0b.png
Outlook-wbmjowem.png
Outlook-v0uyx4lh.png
Outlook-ixgbju5y.png
Importance: High

Good afternoon,

Flagging the below media inquiry to all three of you, given its specifics. FWIW, I don't recall working
with this reporter in the past.

Happy to discuss strategy and next steps.

Thanks,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-1

published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a
fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?
8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-2

Muska, Scott

From: Gillett, Marissa

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 1:54 PM
To: Arconti, David
Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Get Outlook for iOS

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:18:38 PM
To: Gillett, Marissa <[email protected]>; Muska, Scott <[email protected]>; Govert, Theresa
<[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good afternoon,

Flagging the below media inquiry to all three of you, given its specifics. FWIW, I don't recall working with this reporter in
the past.

Happy to discuss strategy and next steps.

Thanks,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you
trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that Chairwoman Marissa Gillett
has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey
Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such
decisions were made by the full Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000
1
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-3
times since 2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing legal
conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about nothing,” I do have some
questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel
free to respond via email or we can set up a phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know
what works best for you.

1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can decide to assign a
hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing
officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on intermediary matters
and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by
the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for ministerial motions, it
also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to
extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88
in docket 20-01-15, or was this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why
did the other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the other commissioners
regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other commissioners see the draft decision before voting
on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a fair hearing
because the process has not followed state statute?
8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of day, Wednesday
12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

2
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-4
From: O"Connor, Taren
To: Gillett, Marissa; Muska, Scott; Govert, Theresa
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 11:23:57 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-tltlqv0b.png
Outlook-wbmjowem.png
Outlook-v0uyx4lh.png
Outlook-ixgbju5y.png
Outlook-yxhjgypv.png
Outlook-x1vgcdpd.png
Outlook-g3fkavi0.png
Outlook-pmjociy0.png

Good morning,

For use as we draft a possible response: 12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

Thank you,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Gillett, Marissa <[email protected]>; Muska, Scott <[email protected]>; Govert, Theresa
<[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good afternoon,

Flagging the below media inquiry to all three of you, given its specifics. FWIW, I don't recall working
with this reporter in the past.

Happy to discuss strategy and next steps.

Thanks,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-5

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be
published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a
fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-6

 8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-7

From: Gillett, Marissa
To: O"Connor, Taren
Subject: Gillett, Marissa left a comment in "12.12.24 Media Inquiry"
Date: Sunday, December 15, 2024 3:45:32 PM
Attachments: AttachedImage
AttachedImage
AttachedImage
AttachedImage
AttachedImage

-->
-->

12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

Gillett, Marissa added a comment

Go to comment

Why am I receiving this notification from Office?

Notification Settings

This email is generated through State of Connecticut's use of Microsoft 365 and may contain
content that is controlled by State of Connecticut.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-8

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-9
Muska, Scott

From: Muska, Scott

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 12:21 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren
Subject: Muska, Scott left a comment in "12.12.24 Media Inquiry"

12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

Muska, Scott added a comment

Go to comment

Why am I receiving this notification from Office?

1
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-10
Muska, Scott

From: Muska, Scott

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:43 PM
To: Gillett, Marissa
Subject: Muska, Scott mentioned you in "12.12.24 Media Inquiry".

12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

Muska, Scott mentioned you

Go to comment

Why am I receiving this notification from Office?

This email is generated through State of Connecticut's use of Microsoft 365 and may
contain content that is controlled by State of Connecticut.

1
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-11
Muska, Scott

From: Muska, Scott

Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:44 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren
Subject: Muska, Scott left a comment in "12.12.24 Media Inquiry"

12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

Muska, Scott added a comment

Go to comment

Why am I receiving this notification from Office?

1
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-12
From: Gillett, Marissa
To: Muska, Scott
Subject: Gillett, Marissa replied to a comment in "12.12.24 Media Inquiry"
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 1:49:41 PM
Attachments: AttachedImage
AttachedImage
AttachedImage
AttachedImage
AttachedImage

-->
-->

12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

You left a comment

Gillett, Marissa replied

Go to comment

Why am I receiving this notification from Office?

Notification Settings

This email is generated through State of Connecticut's use of Microsoft 365 and may contain
content that is controlled by State of Connecticut.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-13

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-14
From: Govert, Theresa
To: O"Connor, Taren
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:27:40 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-tltlqv0b.png
Outlook-wbmjowem.png
Outlook-v0uyx4lh.png
Outlook-ixgbju5y.png
Outlook-yxhjgypv.png
Outlook-x1vgcdpd.png
Outlook-g3fkavi0.png
Outlook-pmjociy0.png

Hi! Below ready to be copy and pasted and sent!

Questions:
1. Has Marissa Gillett been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?

This question appears to conflate the term "hearing officer," as defined in Section 16-2,
with "presiding officer," as defined in Section 4-166(13). It is important to note that
these terms are not synonymous and carry distinct legal definitions and procedural
implications. Therefore the answer is no - the Chair does not act as a hearing officer. A
hearing officer is a member of PURA staff (usually a staff attorney) designated under
General Statutes § 16-2(c) to conduct a proceeding, ascertain facts, and issue a
proposed final decision under § 4-179 for the commissioner panel’s consideration. If a
hearing officer is assigned, the commissioners are generally not involved in the
proceeding until a proposed final decision has been rendered by the hearing officer.
The Authority designates hearing officers only on rare occasions and usually for less
consequential matters. Technically, the panel of commissioners could delegate the
hearing officer responsibilities to one or more commissioners; however, this power has
never been exercised to our knowledge.

For the vast majority of proceedings, unless a commissioner recuses themselves or is

absent for an extended period, each commissioner assigned to the panel hears each
case, participates in hearings (unless they have a scheduling conflict), receives all
filings and notices in the docket, and engages in deliberations with other
commissioners and staff throughout the proceeding. Importantly, all commissioners
assigned to a panel vote on all final decisions. Therefore, for practically all
proceedings, either the full panel or, at least, a majority of the commissioners, have
heard the matter and read the record. Each commissioner has access to and reads the
record of the proceeding, participates in all hearings or reviews transcripts, and
engages on both substantive and procedural questions before the Authority.

2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person
panel can decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of
panel assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?

Every panel assignment is part of the public record and is available through PURA’s

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-15

 public case management database. For most of its recent history, and until August
2024, PURA has only had 3 commissioners; therefore, the panel has, by default, been
the full panel of commissioners. As noted above, in the rare event that the panel
delegates a matter to a hearing officer, the designation is completed through
consensus of the commissioners with the designation noticed to all parties in the
docket. The Authority is not aware of any objection to the designation of a hearing
officer in a proceeding.

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. The designation is made by the
Chair in the public case management database and through notices in the docket.   

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. The Authority has only identified one
exception to this over the past five years, where a single commissioner issued a final
decision, and that was issued by Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski – not the chair.
See Docket No. 13-01-32, JOINT APPLICATION OF WIND COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC
AND THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF A PROPOSED RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WIND
COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC - INTERCONNECTION DISPUTE.

3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a

correspondence on intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is
decision of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by the
majority of commissioners?

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. Under the UAPA, the 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.
Although the presiding officer exercises these and other powers, the other
commissioners remain engaged in the proceeding and offer advice and input on all issues
before the Authority. Importantly, if a majority of commissioners disagrees with the presiding
officer on a particular ruling, such majority may issue an appropriate order. To our knowledge,
this has not occurred in PURA’s recent history, demonstrating that the presiding officer’s
exercise of authority has been supported by or consented to by at least a majority of
commissioners.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Authority has consulted with the Office of the

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-16

Attorney General (OAG) 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. Separately, lawyers for OAG have, in a public hearing, specifically challenged the
narrative advanced by the utilities around process “so that on the record for this inevitable
appeal, there will be the position of the Attorney General on some of those allegations.”
CNG/SCG Oral Argument, Tr. 105:4 – 106:20. The OAG attorney first noted that the allegedly
objectionable practice “has been the practice in this PURA for [at least] 25 years” and that the
utilities’ position would “bring [the Authority] to a grinding halt [and is] just not a serious
argument.” The OAG attorney continued to harshly criticize such procedural claims as being
made “on the most contextual and manufactured evidence,” “amount[ing] to a nothing
burger,” “nonsense,” “beyond silly,” and “absurd . . . on many different levels.” The OAG
attorney concludes “I just don’t see the logic behind it.” Consequently, the utilities’
procedural allegations have been subject to outside scrutiny and found to be devoid of legal
merit.

4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been
used for ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly
1,000 substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the
COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA commissioners to
approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was this a decision solely by
Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the other
commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in
the state?

Under the UAPA, the presiding officer is authorized to exercise a variety of powers in
conducting an orderly proceeding, including issuing procedural and intermediary rulings. As
noted above, if a majority of commissioner object to a specific ruling, that majority may issue
appropriate orders. This process permits the Authority to efficiently manage proceedings
while ensuring that all commissioners have an opportunity to weigh in on any ruling.   

For example, in the recent Southern CT Gas and CT Natural Gas rate case, the
Authority processed 121 motions before issuing a final decision. This included:15 motions for
party or intervenor requests or consultant notices; 26 motions for extensions of time;
62 motions for protective treatment; and 22 other procedural or evidentiary motions. The vast
majority of the motions were granted or granted in part. At no point did a majority of the
commissioners disagree with any of these motion rulings and exercise their right to issue
appropriate orders. Importantly, the commissioners engage in a continuous consultation
process on all matters in a proceeding, including through monthly decisional staff meetings on
all open matters, bi-weekly commissioner meetings, ad hoc conversations and meetings, and
by email. Further, the commissioners are all in the hearing room when evidentiary issues and
disputes arise and may discuss the issue in public or request a recess. All commissioners
have the opportunity to weigh in on any issue, both before and after a ruling is issued.

In addition, to the extent any person feels aggrieved by what the person deems a
substantive ruling of the Authority, whether by the presiding officer or by a majority of the

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-17

commissioners, that person is entitled to seek an administrative appeal. No one is deprived
any procedural rights based on who issues the ruling.

Consequently, with respect to Motion No. 88 issued in Docket No. 20-03-15 referenced
above, the Authority received a motion from elected leaders with only one entity (Operation
Fuel) commenting and no one filing an objection. 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. The matter was discussed with all commissioners in advance of the ruling. 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.

5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?

In short: the Connecticut General Assembly.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the General Assembly
establishes by statute which cases are deemed “contested” and subject to procedural
safeguards of the UAPA. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health,
347 Conn. 317, 328–29 (2023) (“The legislature has the primary and continuing role in
deciding which class of proceedings should enjoy the full panoply of procedural
protections afforded by the UAPA to contested cases, including the right to appellate
review by the judiciary. Deciding which class of cases qualifies for contested case
status reflects an important matter of public policy and the primary responsibility for
formulating public policy must remain with the legislature.”).

The courts also have an important role in interpreting the governing statutes and
applying a three-part test to determine whether a proceeding is subject to the UAPA.
See High Watch Recovery, 347 Conn. at 328.
Importantly, the agency conducting a proceeding does not determine whether the
proceeding is contested or uncontested. This is for the obvious reason that the agency
issuing a decision should not be the arbiter of whether its decision is subject to
appeal. In fact, the agency’s characterization of a proceeding as either contested or
uncontested is irrelevant to the legal analysis. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v.
Dep't of Pub. Health, 207 Conn.App. 397, 416 (2023) (“the hearing officer could not
have converted the proceeding into a contested case by her words alone, . . .”).
If a party in an agency proceeding believes it has been aggrieved by the agency, the
party may seek an administrative appeal. At that time, the court will determine, based
on the applicable statutes, whether the proceeding is contested and, therefore,
subject to the UAPA.

6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held
with the other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do
the other commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-18

 Proposed final decisions are drafted by decisional staff, which include accountants,
finance specialists, rate design experts, engineers, research analysts, and lawyers. Proposed
final decisions are not voted on by commissioners and have no legal or precedential effect.
The Authority uses the Microsoft 365 document sharing platform Sharepoint to provide access
for decisional staff and commissioners to docket documents, including proposed final
decisions. Consequently, all commissioners may access and review proposed final decisions
and other docket documents in real time, at any time. The proposed final decision is typically
issued several weeks before the commissioners vote on the final decision. This permits time
for written exceptions and oral argument from docket participants, as well as time for the
commissioners to deliberate on any issues in the proceeding.   

In addition to this process, the Authority holds monthly sector meetings where
decisional lead staff give comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before
the agency, as well as several other opportunities for review and discussion around a specific
case or matter being considered. 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. Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place regularly until they
were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.

7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they
were not given a fair hearing because the process has not followed state
statute?

No. 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. Parties
will often resort to due process claims when the substance of their appeal is unlikely to
prevail in court. 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 — a de facto acknowledgement that their
substantive arguments lack merit or are manifestly anemic. .

8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

The following statement can be attributed to Chair Gillett:

"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. 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). To

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-19

 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. I look forward to putting these
unsubstantiated accusations behind us all and returning to the important work
ahead.”

The following statement can be attributed to Vice Chair Betkoski:

“This is much ado over nothing. In the close to three decades that I have served
as a utility commissioner, the executive secretary’s signature has always been
affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a docket. I take great
pride in always conducting work alongside my fellow commissioners and staff,
with the utmost respect for and adherence to the law.”

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Arconti:

“In my five months of service so far, Chair Gillett, Vice Chair Betkoski and
Commissioner Caron have been collaborative and accommodating, and I’m
proud to have played an active role in PURA’s decision making since day one. I
agree with my colleagues that the utilities are better served by returning their
focus to the substantive work in front of us.”

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 11:23 AM
To: Gillett, Marissa <[email protected]>; Muska, Scott <[email protected]>; Govert, Theresa
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good morning,

For use as we draft a possible response: 12.12.24 Media Inquiry.docx

Thank you,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-20

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:18 PM
To: Gillett, Marissa <[email protected]>; Muska, Scott <[email protected]>; Govert, Theresa
<[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good afternoon,

Flagging the below media inquiry to all three of you, given its specifics. FWIW, I don't recall working
with this reporter in the past.

Happy to discuss strategy and next steps.

Thanks,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be
published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-21

 1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a
fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?
8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-22

From: O"Connor, Taren
To: Marc Fitch
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:43:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-xt51by3x.png
Outlook-qpozxffi.png
Outlook-1hhnw45k.png
Outlook-ktq1kdkd.png
Outlook-4thhsnic.png
Outlook-eux4f531.png
Outlook-grxe1nue.png
Outlook-4uunesoz.png

Good afternoon,

Questions:
1. Has Marissa Gillett been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?

This question appears to conflate the term "hearing officer," as defined in Section 16-2,
with "presiding officer," as defined in Section 4-166(13). It is important to note that
these terms are not synonymous and carry distinct legal definitions and procedural
implications. Therefore the answer is no - the Chair does not act as a hearing officer. A
hearing officer is a member of PURA staff (usually a staff attorney) designated under
General Statutes § 16-2(c) to conduct a proceeding, ascertain facts, and issue a
proposed final decision under § 4-179 for the commissioner panel’s consideration. If a
hearing officer is assigned, the commissioners are generally not involved in the
proceeding until a proposed final decision has been rendered by the hearing officer.
The Authority designates hearing officers only on rare occasions and usually for less
consequential matters. Technically, the panel of commissioners could delegate the
hearing officer responsibilities to one or more commissioners; however, this power has
never been exercised to our knowledge.

For the vast majority of proceedings, unless a commissioner recuses themselves or is

absent for an extended period, each commissioner assigned to the panel hears each
case, participates in hearings (unless they have a scheduling conflict), receives all
filings and notices in the docket, and engages in deliberations with other
commissioners and staff throughout the proceeding. Importantly, all commissioners
assigned to a panel vote on all final decisions. Therefore, for practically all
proceedings, either the full panel or, at least, a majority of the commissioners, have
heard the matter and read the record. Each commissioner has access to and reads the
record of the proceeding, participates in all hearings or reviews transcripts, and
engages on both substantive and procedural questions before the Authority.

2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person
panel can decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of
panel assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?

Every panel assignment is part of the public record and is available through PURA’s

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-23

 public case management database. For most of its recent history, and until August
2024, PURA has only had 3 commissioners; therefore, the panel has, by default, been
the full panel of commissioners. As noted above, in the rare event that the panel
delegates a matter to a hearing officer, the designation is completed through
consensus of the commissioners with the designation noticed to all parties in the
docket. The Authority is not aware of any objection to the designation of a hearing
officer in a proceeding.

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. The designation is made by the
Chair in the public case management database and through notices in the docket.   

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. The Authority has only identified one
exception to this over the past five years, where a single commissioner issued a final
decision, and that was issued by Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski – not the chair.
See Docket No. 13-01-32, JOINT APPLICATION OF WIND COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC
AND THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF A PROPOSED RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WIND
COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC - INTERCONNECTION DISPUTE.

3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a

correspondence on intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is
decision of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by the
majority of commissioners?

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. Under the UAPA, the 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.
Although the presiding officer exercises these and other powers, the other
commissioners remain engaged in the proceeding and offer advice and input on all issues
before the Authority. Importantly, if a majority of commissioners disagrees with the presiding
officer on a particular ruling, such majority may issue an appropriate order. To our knowledge,
this has not occurred in PURA’s recent history, demonstrating that the presiding officer’s
exercise of authority has been supported by or consented to by at least a majority of
commissioners.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Authority has consulted with the Office of the

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-24

Attorney General (OAG) 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. Separately, lawyers for OAG have, in a public hearing, specifically challenged the
narrative advanced by the utilities around process “so that on the record for this inevitable
appeal, there will be the position of the Attorney General on some of those allegations.”
CNG/SCG Oral Argument, Tr. 105:4 – 106:20. The OAG attorney first noted that the allegedly
objectionable practice “has been the practice in this PURA for [at least] 25 years” and that the
utilities’ position would “bring [the Authority] to a grinding halt [and is] just not a serious
argument.” The OAG attorney continued to harshly criticize such procedural claims as being
made “on the most contextual and manufactured evidence,” “amount[ing] to a nothing
burger,” “nonsense,” “beyond silly,” and “absurd . . . on many different levels.” The OAG
attorney concludes “I just don’t see the logic behind it.” Consequently, the utilities’
procedural allegations have been subject to outside scrutiny and found to be devoid of legal
merit.

4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been
used for ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly
1,000 substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the
COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA commissioners to
approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was this a decision solely by
Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the other
commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in
the state?

Under the UAPA, the presiding officer is authorized to exercise a variety of powers in
conducting an orderly proceeding, including issuing procedural and intermediary rulings. As
noted above, if a majority of commissioner object to a specific ruling, that majority may issue
appropriate orders. This process permits the Authority to efficiently manage proceedings
while ensuring that all commissioners have an opportunity to weigh in on any ruling.   

For example, in the recent Southern CT Gas and CT Natural Gas rate case, the
Authority processed 121 motions before issuing a final decision. This included:15 motions for
party or intervenor requests or consultant notices; 26 motions for extensions of time;
62 motions for protective treatment; and 22 other procedural or evidentiary motions. The vast
majority of the motions were granted or granted in part. At no point did a majority of the
commissioners disagree with any of these motion rulings and exercise their right to issue
appropriate orders. Importantly, the commissioners engage in a continuous consultation
process on all matters in a proceeding, including through monthly decisional staff meetings on
all open matters, bi-weekly commissioner meetings, ad hoc conversations and meetings, and
by email. Further, the commissioners are all in the hearing room when evidentiary issues and
disputes arise and may discuss the issue in public or request a recess. All commissioners
have the opportunity to weigh in on any issue, both before and after a ruling is issued.

In addition, to the extent any person feels aggrieved by what the person deems a
substantive ruling of the Authority, whether by the presiding officer or by a majority of the

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-25

commissioners, that person is entitled to seek an administrative appeal. No one is deprived
any procedural rights based on who issues the ruling.

Consequently, with respect to Motion No. 88 issued in Docket No. 20-03-15 referenced
above, the Authority received a motion from elected leaders with only one entity (Operation
Fuel) commenting and no one filing an objection. 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. The matter was discussed with all commissioners in advance of the ruling. 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.

5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?

In short: the Connecticut General Assembly.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the General Assembly
establishes by statute which cases are deemed “contested” and subject to procedural
safeguards of the UAPA. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health,
347 Conn. 317, 328–29 (2023) (“The legislature has the primary and continuing role in
deciding which class of proceedings should enjoy the full panoply of procedural
protections afforded by the UAPA to contested cases, including the right to appellate
review by the judiciary. Deciding which class of cases qualifies for contested case
status reflects an important matter of public policy and the primary responsibility for
formulating public policy must remain with the legislature.”).

The courts also have an important role in interpreting the governing statutes and
applying a three-part test to determine whether a proceeding is subject to the UAPA.
See High Watch Recovery, 347 Conn. at 328.
Importantly, the agency conducting a proceeding does not determine whether the
proceeding is contested or uncontested. This is for the obvious reason that the agency
issuing a decision should not be the arbiter of whether its decision is subject to
appeal. In fact, the agency’s characterization of a proceeding as either contested or
uncontested is irrelevant to the legal analysis. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v.
Dep't of Pub. Health, 207 Conn.App. 397, 416 (2023) (“the hearing officer could not
have converted the proceeding into a contested case by her words alone, . . .”).
If a party in an agency proceeding believes it has been aggrieved by the agency, the
party may seek an administrative appeal. At that time, the court will determine, based
on the applicable statutes, whether the proceeding is contested and, therefore,
subject to the UAPA.

6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held
with the other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do
the other commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-26

 Proposed final decisions are drafted by decisional staff, which include accountants,
finance specialists, rate design experts, engineers, research analysts, and lawyers. Proposed
final decisions are not voted on by commissioners and have no legal or precedential effect.
The Authority uses the Microsoft 365 document sharing platform Sharepoint to provide access
for decisional staff and commissioners to docket documents, including proposed final
decisions. Consequently, all commissioners may access and review proposed final decisions
and other docket documents in real time, at any time. The proposed final decision is typically
issued several weeks before the commissioners vote on the final decision. This permits time
for written exceptions and oral argument from docket participants, as well as time for the
commissioners to deliberate on any issues in the proceeding.   

In addition to this process, the Authority holds monthly sector meetings where
decisional lead staff give comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before
the agency, as well as several other opportunities for review and discussion around a specific
case or matter being considered. 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. Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place regularly until they
were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.

7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they
were not given a fair hearing because the process has not followed state
statute?

No. 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. Parties
will often resort to due process claims when the substance of their appeal is unlikely to
prevail in court. 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 — a de facto acknowledgement that their
substantive arguments lack merit or are manifestly anemic. .

8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

The following statement can be attributed to Chair Gillett:

"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. 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). To

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-27

 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. I look forward to putting these
unsubstantiated accusations behind us all and returning to the important work
ahead.”

The following statement can be attributed to Vice Chair Betkoski:

“This is much ado over nothing. In the close to three decades that I have served
as a utility commissioner, the executive secretary’s signature has always been
affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a docket. I take great
pride in always conducting work alongside my fellow commissioners and staff,
with the utmost respect for and adherence to the law.”

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Arconti:

“In my five months of service so far, Chair Gillett, Vice Chair Betkoski and
Commissioner Caron have been collaborative and accommodating, and I’m
proud to have played an active role in PURA’s decision making since day one. I
agree with my colleagues that the utilities are better served by returning their
focus to the substantive work in front of us.”

All the best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:57 AM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you! You too!

Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-28

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:55:37 AM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Mr. Fitch,

Thanks for reaching out. Confirming receipt and will work to provide a response by your deadline.

Have a great weekend!

Best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be
published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-29

 1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a
fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?
8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-30

From: Govert, Theresa
To: Muska, Scott; O"Connor, Taren
Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Thursday, December 19, 2024 10:04:10 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-xt51by3x.png
Outlook-qpozxffi.png
Outlook-1hhnw45k.png
Outlook-ktq1kdkd.png
Outlook-4thhsnic.png
Outlook-eux4f531.png
Outlook-grxe1nue.png
Outlook-4uunesoz.png

Hi Scott,

We got a question back from the reporter and was hoping that you could review the drafted
response before

"Thank you for the follow-up question.

Theresa Govert
Chief of Staff | PURA
p: 860-817-3115

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 5:02 PM
To: Govert, Theresa <[email protected]>

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-31

Subject: Fwd: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:52:45 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for the response.

In regards to the first question, has chairman Gillett been acting as presiding officer is all cases
before PURA? Your answer seems to imply that she has.

The rest of the answers are appreciated and those comments will be included in the piece.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:43:22 PM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good afternoon,

Questions:
1. Has Marissa Gillett been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?

This question appears to conflate the term "hearing officer," as defined in Section 16-2,
with "presiding officer," as defined in Section 4-166(13). It is important to note that
these terms are not synonymous and carry distinct legal definitions and procedural
implications. Therefore the answer is no - the Chair does not act as a hearing officer. A
hearing officer is a member of PURA staff (usually a staff attorney) designated under
General Statutes § 16-2(c) to conduct a proceeding, ascertain facts, and issue a

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-32

proposed final decision under § 4-179 for the commissioner panel’s consideration. If a
hearing officer is assigned, the commissioners are generally not involved in the
proceeding until a proposed final decision has been rendered by the hearing officer.
The Authority designates hearing officers only on rare occasions and usually for less
consequential matters. Technically, the panel of commissioners could delegate the
hearing officer responsibilities to one or more commissioners; however, this power has
never been exercised to our knowledge.

For the vast majority of proceedings, unless a commissioner recuses themselves or is

absent for an extended period, each commissioner assigned to the panel hears each
case, participates in hearings (unless they have a scheduling conflict), receives all
filings and notices in the docket, and engages in deliberations with other
commissioners and staff throughout the proceeding. Importantly, all commissioners
assigned to a panel vote on all final decisions. Therefore, for practically all
proceedings, either the full panel or, at least, a majority of the commissioners, have
heard the matter and read the record. Each commissioner has access to and reads the
record of the proceeding, participates in all hearings or reviews transcripts, and
engages on both substantive and procedural questions before the Authority.

2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person
panel can decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of
panel assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?

Every panel assignment is part of the public record and is available through PURA’s
public case management database. For most of its recent history, and until August
2024, PURA has only had 3 commissioners; therefore, the panel has, by default, been
the full panel of commissioners. As noted above, in the rare event that the panel
delegates a matter to a hearing officer, the designation is completed through
consensus of the commissioners with the designation noticed to all parties in the
docket. The Authority is not aware of any objection to the designation of a hearing
officer in a proceeding.

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. The designation is made by the
Chair in the public case management database and through notices in the docket.   

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. The Authority has only identified one
exception to this over the past five years, where a single commissioner issued a final
decision, and that was issued by Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski – not the chair.
See Docket No. 13-01-32, JOINT APPLICATION OF WIND COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC
AND THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-33

 OF A PROPOSED RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WIND
COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC - INTERCONNECTION DISPUTE.

3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a

correspondence on intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is
decision of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by the
majority of commissioners?

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. Under the UAPA, the 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.
Although the presiding officer exercises these and other powers, the other
commissioners remain engaged in the proceeding and offer advice and input on all issues
before the Authority. Importantly, if a majority of commissioners disagrees with the presiding
officer on a particular ruling, such majority may issue an appropriate order. To our knowledge,
this has not occurred in PURA’s recent history, demonstrating that the presiding officer’s
exercise of authority has been supported by or consented to by at least a majority of
commissioners.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Authority has consulted with the Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) 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. Separately, lawyers for OAG have, in a public hearing, specifically challenged the
narrative advanced by the utilities around process “so that on the record for this inevitable
appeal, there will be the position of the Attorney General on some of those allegations.”
CNG/SCG Oral Argument, Tr. 105:4 – 106:20. The OAG attorney first noted that the allegedly
objectionable practice “has been the practice in this PURA for [at least] 25 years” and that the
utilities’ position would “bring [the Authority] to a grinding halt [and is] just not a serious
argument.” The OAG attorney continued to harshly criticize such procedural claims as being
made “on the most contextual and manufactured evidence,” “amount[ing] to a nothing
burger,” “nonsense,” “beyond silly,” and “absurd . . . on many different levels.” The OAG
attorney concludes “I just don’t see the logic behind it.” Consequently, the utilities’
procedural allegations have been subject to outside scrutiny and found to be devoid of legal
merit.

4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been
used for ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly
1,000 substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the
COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA commissioners to
approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was this a decision solely by
Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the other

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-34

 commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in
the state?

Under the UAPA, the presiding officer is authorized to exercise a variety of powers in
conducting an orderly proceeding, including issuing procedural and intermediary rulings. As
noted above, if a majority of commissioner object to a specific ruling, that majority may issue
appropriate orders. This process permits the Authority to efficiently manage proceedings
while ensuring that all commissioners have an opportunity to weigh in on any ruling.   

For example, in the recent Southern CT Gas and CT Natural Gas rate case, the
Authority processed 121 motions before issuing a final decision. This included:15 motions for
party or intervenor requests or consultant notices; 26 motions for extensions of time;
62 motions for protective treatment; and 22 other procedural or evidentiary motions. The vast
majority of the motions were granted or granted in part. At no point did a majority of the
commissioners disagree with any of these motion rulings and exercise their right to issue
appropriate orders. Importantly, the commissioners engage in a continuous consultation
process on all matters in a proceeding, including through monthly decisional staff meetings on
all open matters, bi-weekly commissioner meetings, ad hoc conversations and meetings, and
by email. Further, the commissioners are all in the hearing room when evidentiary issues and
disputes arise and may discuss the issue in public or request a recess. All commissioners
have the opportunity to weigh in on any issue, both before and after a ruling is issued.

In addition, to the extent any person feels aggrieved by what the person deems a
substantive ruling of the Authority, whether by the presiding officer or by a majority of the
commissioners, that person is entitled to seek an administrative appeal. No one is deprived
any procedural rights based on who issues the ruling.

Consequently, with respect to Motion No. 88 issued in Docket No. 20-03-15 referenced
above, the Authority received a motion from elected leaders with only one entity (Operation
Fuel) commenting and no one filing an objection. 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. The matter was discussed with all commissioners in advance of the ruling. 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.

5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?

In short: the Connecticut General Assembly.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the General Assembly
establishes by statute which cases are deemed “contested” and subject to procedural
safeguards of the UAPA. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health,
347 Conn. 317, 328–29 (2023) (“The legislature has the primary and continuing role in

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-35

 deciding which class of proceedings should enjoy the full panoply of procedural
protections afforded by the UAPA to contested cases, including the right to appellate
review by the judiciary. Deciding which class of cases qualifies for contested case
status reflects an important matter of public policy and the primary responsibility for
formulating public policy must remain with the legislature.”).

The courts also have an important role in interpreting the governing statutes and
applying a three-part test to determine whether a proceeding is subject to the UAPA.
See High Watch Recovery, 347 Conn. at 328.
Importantly, the agency conducting a proceeding does not determine whether the
proceeding is contested or uncontested. This is for the obvious reason that the agency
issuing a decision should not be the arbiter of whether its decision is subject to
appeal. In fact, the agency’s characterization of a proceeding as either contested or
uncontested is irrelevant to the legal analysis. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v.
Dep't of Pub. Health, 207 Conn.App. 397, 416 (2023) (“the hearing officer could not
have converted the proceeding into a contested case by her words alone, . . .”).
If a party in an agency proceeding believes it has been aggrieved by the agency, the
party may seek an administrative appeal. At that time, the court will determine, based
on the applicable statutes, whether the proceeding is contested and, therefore,
subject to the UAPA.

6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held
with the other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do
the other commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?

Proposed final decisions are drafted by decisional staff, which include accountants,
finance specialists, rate design experts, engineers, research analysts, and lawyers. Proposed
final decisions are not voted on by commissioners and have no legal or precedential effect.
The Authority uses the Microsoft 365 document sharing platform Sharepoint to provide access
for decisional staff and commissioners to docket documents, including proposed final
decisions. Consequently, all commissioners may access and review proposed final decisions
and other docket documents in real time, at any time. The proposed final decision is typically
issued several weeks before the commissioners vote on the final decision. This permits time
for written exceptions and oral argument from docket participants, as well as time for the
commissioners to deliberate on any issues in the proceeding.   

In addition to this process, the Authority holds monthly sector meetings where
decisional lead staff give comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before
the agency, as well as several other opportunities for review and discussion around a specific
case or matter being considered. 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. Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place regularly until they
were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.

7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-36

 were not given a fair hearing because the process has not followed state
statute?

No. 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. Parties
will often resort to due process claims when the substance of their appeal is unlikely to
prevail in court. 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 — a de facto acknowledgement that their
substantive arguments lack merit or are manifestly anemic. .

8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

The following statement can be attributed to Chair Gillett:

"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. 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). 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. I look forward to putting these
unsubstantiated accusations behind us all and returning to the important work
ahead.”

The following statement can be attributed to Vice Chair Betkoski:

“This is much ado over nothing. In the close to three decades that I have served
as a utility commissioner, the executive secretary’s signature has always been
affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a docket. I take great
pride in always conducting work alongside my fellow commissioners and staff,
with the utmost respect for and adherence to the law.”

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Arconti:

“In my five months of service so far, Chair Gillett, Vice Chair Betkoski and
Commissioner Caron have been collaborative and accommodating, and I’m
proud to have played an active role in PURA’s decision making since day one. I
agree with my colleagues that the utilities are better served by returning their
focus to the substantive work in front of us.”

All the best,

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-37

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:57 AM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you! You too!

Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:55:37 AM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Mr. Fitch,

Thanks for reaching out. Confirming receipt and will work to provide a response by your deadline.

Have a great weekend!

Best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-38

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be
published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a
fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-39

 8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-40

From: Govert, Theresa
To: O"Connor, Taren
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Thursday, December 19, 2024 3:27:31 PM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png

Please respond with the below - thank you!

Thank you for the follow-up question. As we stated, General Statutes § 4-166(13) defines
the presiding officer as the person designated by the head of the agency to preside at a
hearing. As the head of PURA, Chair Gillett will generally designate herself as the presiding
officer, unless she is unable to perform the function. Notably, although the presiding officer
has numerous powers under Title 16 and the UAPA, they are not without limitation. A majority
of the panel may reverse or modify any order of the presiding officer. Because of this, the
presiding officer will generally ensure a consensus before ruling.

To answer the specific question, the Chair has not acted as the presiding officer on all dockets
or during all hearings held during her tenure. As noted in one of our other responses, for
example, Vice Chairman Betkoski issued a sole commissioner decision in Docket No. 13-01-
32 during the chair’s tenure. Other notable contested proceedings (in these examples, rate
cases) in which other commissioners served as the presiding officer include Connecticut
Water’s previous rate case, Docket No. 20-12-30, which the Vice Chairman presided over, as
well as Docket No. 20-10-31, another water rate case over which Commissioner Caron
presided. Additionally, while PURA oversees the initiation of over 300 dockets each year,
many are routine licensing dockets or other matters in which there are not formal hearings or
intermediary rulings that require action by a presiding officer. While the commissioner panels
for all of these dockets are publicly available through the agency’s case management
database, we do not explicitly track panel assignments, so the previous examples were
provided in good faith based on recent recollections.

Theresa Govert
Chief of Staff | PURA
p: 860-817-3115

From: Govert, Theresa <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 10:39 AM
To: Muska, Scott <[email protected]>; O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-41

Thank you!

Theresa Govert
Chief of Staff | PURA
p: 860-817-3115

From: Muska, Scott <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 10:20 AM
To: Govert, Theresa <[email protected]>; O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

See below

Scott Muska
General Counsel | Legal Director
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-830-0584 | e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Govert, Theresa <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 10:04 AM
To: Muska, Scott <[email protected]>; O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Hi Scott,

We got a question back from the reporter and was hoping that you could review the drafted
response before

"Thank you for the follow-up question.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-42

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-43
Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:43:22 PM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good afternoon,

Questions:
1.      Has Marissa Gillett been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?

This question appears to conflate the term "hearing officer," as defined in Section 16-2,
with "presiding officer," as defined in Section 4-166(13). It is important to note that
these terms are not synonymous and carry distinct legal definitions and procedural
implications. Therefore the answer is no - the Chair does not act as a hearing officer. A
hearing officer is a member of PURA staff (usually a staff attorney) designated under
General Statutes § 16-2(c) to conduct a proceeding, ascertain facts, and issue a
proposed final decision under § 4-179 for the commissioner panel’s consideration. If a
hearing officer is assigned, the commissioners are generally not involved in the
proceeding until a proposed final decision has been rendered by the hearing officer.
The Authority designates hearing officers only on rare occasions and usually for less
consequential matters. Technically, the panel of commissioners could delegate the
hearing officer responsibilities to one or more commissioners; however, this power has
never been exercised to our knowledge.

For the vast majority of proceedings, unless a commissioner recuses themselves or is

absent for an extended period, each commissioner assigned to the panel hears each
case, participates in hearings (unless they have a scheduling conflict), receives all
filings and notices in the docket, and engages in deliberations with other
commissioners and staff throughout the proceeding. Importantly, all commissioners
assigned to a panel vote on all final decisions. Therefore, for practically all
proceedings, either the full panel or, at least, a majority of the commissioners, have
heard the matter and read the record. Each commissioner has access to and reads the
record of the proceeding, participates in all hearings or reviews transcripts, and
engages on both substantive and procedural questions before the Authority.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-44

2.                  State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person
panel can decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel
assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?

Every panel assignment is part of the public record and is available through PURA’s
public case management database. For most of its recent history, and until August
2024, PURA has only had 3 commissioners; therefore, the panel has, by default, been
the full panel of commissioners. As noted above, in the rare event that the panel
delegates a matter to a hearing officer, the designation is completed through
consensus of the commissioners with the designation noticed to all parties in the
docket. The Authority is not aware of any objection to the designation of a hearing
officer in a proceeding.

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. The designation is made by the
Chair in the public case management database and through notices in the docket.   

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. The Authority has only identified one
exception to this over the past five years, where a single commissioner issued a final
decision, and that was issued by Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski – not the chair.
See Docket No. 13-01-32, JOINT APPLICATION OF WIND COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC
AND THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF A PROPOSED RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WIND
COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC - INTERCONNECTION DISPUTE.

3.                  When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a
correspondence on intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision
of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of
commissioners?

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. Under the UAPA, the 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,

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-45

and grant immunity for testimony.
Although the presiding officer exercises these and other powers, the other
commissioners remain engaged in the proceeding and offer advice and input on all issues
before the Authority. Importantly, if a majority of commissioners disagrees with the presiding
officer on a particular ruling, such majority may issue an appropriate order. To our knowledge,
this has not occurred in PURA’s recent history, demonstrating that the presiding officer’s
exercise of authority has been supported by or consented to by at least a majority of
commissioners.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Authority has consulted with the Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) 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. Separately, lawyers for OAG have, in a public hearing, specifically challenged the
narrative advanced by the utilities around process “so that on the record for this inevitable
appeal, there will be the position of the Attorney General on some of those allegations.”
CNG/SCG Oral Argument, Tr. 105:4 – 106:20. The OAG attorney first noted that the allegedly
objectionable practice “has been the practice in this PURA for [at least] 25 years” and that the
utilities’ position would “bring [the Authority] to a grinding halt [and is] just not a serious
argument.” The OAG attorney continued to harshly criticize such procedural claims as being
made “on the most contextual and manufactured evidence,” “amount[ing] to a nothing
burger,” “nonsense,” “beyond silly,” and “absurd . . . on many different levels.” The OAG
attorney concludes “I just don’t see the logic behind it.” Consequently, the utilities’
procedural allegations have been subject to outside scrutiny and found to be devoid of legal
merit.

4.                  While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been
used for ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000
substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff
moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in
docket 20-01-15, or was this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing
officer? If so, why did the other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected
nearly every ratepayer in the state?

Under the UAPA, the presiding officer is authorized to exercise a variety of powers in
conducting an orderly proceeding, including issuing procedural and intermediary rulings. As
noted above, if a majority of commissioner object to a specific ruling, that majority may issue
appropriate orders. This process permits the Authority to efficiently manage proceedings
while ensuring that all commissioners have an opportunity to weigh in on any ruling.   

For example, in the recent Southern CT Gas and CT Natural Gas rate case, the
Authority processed 121 motions before issuing a final decision. This included:15 motions for
party or intervenor requests or consultant notices; 26 motions for extensions of time;
62 motions for protective treatment; and 22 other procedural or evidentiary motions. The vast
majority of the motions were granted or granted in part. At no point did a majority of the

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-46

commissioners disagree with any of these motion rulings and exercise their right to issue
appropriate orders. Importantly, the commissioners engage in a continuous consultation
process on all matters in a proceeding, including through monthly decisional staff meetings on
all open matters, bi-weekly commissioner meetings, ad hoc conversations and meetings, and
by email. Further, the commissioners are all in the hearing room when evidentiary issues and
disputes arise and may discuss the issue in public or request a recess. All commissioners
have the opportunity to weigh in on any issue, both before and after a ruling is issued.

In addition, to the extent any person feels aggrieved by what the person deems a
substantive ruling of the Authority, whether by the presiding officer or by a majority of the
commissioners, that person is entitled to seek an administrative appeal. No one is deprived
any procedural rights based on who issues the ruling.

Consequently, with respect to Motion No. 88 issued in Docket No. 20-03-15 referenced
above, the Authority received a motion from elected leaders with only one entity (Operation
Fuel) commenting and no one filing an objection. 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. The matter was discussed with all commissioners in advance of the ruling. 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.

5.      Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?

In short: the Connecticut General Assembly.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the General Assembly
establishes by statute which cases are deemed “contested” and subject to procedural
safeguards of the UAPA. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health,
347 Conn. 317, 328–29 (2023) (“The legislature has the primary and continuing role in
deciding which class of proceedings should enjoy the full panoply of procedural
protections afforded by the UAPA to contested cases, including the right to appellate
review by the judiciary. Deciding which class of cases qualifies for contested case
status reflects an important matter of public policy and the primary responsibility for
formulating public policy must remain with the legislature.”).

The courts also have an important role in interpreting the governing statutes and
applying a three-part test to determine whether a proceeding is subject to the UAPA.
See High Watch Recovery, 347 Conn. at 328.
Importantly, the agency conducting a proceeding does not determine whether the
proceeding is contested or uncontested. This is for the obvious reason that the agency

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-47

 issuing a decision should not be the arbiter of whether its decision is subject to
appeal. In fact, the agency’s characterization of a proceeding as either contested or
uncontested is irrelevant to the legal analysis. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v.
Dep't of Pub. Health, 207 Conn.App. 397, 416 (2023) (“the hearing officer could not
have converted the proceeding into a contested case by her words alone, . . .”).
If a party in an agency proceeding believes it has been aggrieved by the agency, the
party may seek an administrative appeal. At that time, the court will determine, based
on the applicable statutes, whether the proceeding is contested and, therefore,
subject to the UAPA.

6.                  Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held
with the other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?

Proposed final decisions are drafted by decisional staff, which include accountants,
finance specialists, rate design experts, engineers, research analysts, and lawyers. Proposed
final decisions are not voted on by commissioners and have no legal or precedential effect.
The Authority uses the Microsoft 365 document sharing platform Sharepoint to provide access
for decisional staff and commissioners to docket documents, including proposed final
decisions. Consequently, all commissioners may access and review proposed final decisions
and other docket documents in real time, at any time. The proposed final decision is typically
issued several weeks before the commissioners vote on the final decision. This permits time
for written exceptions and oral argument from docket participants, as well as time for the
commissioners to deliberate on any issues in the proceeding.   

In addition to this process, the Authority holds monthly sector meetings where
decisional lead staff give comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before
the agency, as well as several other opportunities for review and discussion around a specific
case or matter being considered. 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. Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place regularly until they
were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.

7.                  Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were
not given a fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?

No. 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. Parties
will often resort to due process claims when the substance of their appeal is unlikely to
prevail in court. 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

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-48

 attempt to raise procedural complaints — a de facto acknowledgement that their
substantive arguments lack merit or are manifestly anemic. .

8.                  Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

The following statement can be attributed to Chair Gillett:

"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. 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). 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. I look forward to putting these
unsubstantiated accusations behind us all and returning to the important work
ahead.”

The following statement can be attributed to Vice Chair Betkoski:

“This is much ado over nothing. In the close to three decades that I have served
as a utility commissioner, the executive secretary’s signature has always been
affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a docket. I take great
pride in always conducting work alongside my fellow commissioners and staff,
with the utmost respect for and adherence to the law.”

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Arconti:

“In my five months of service so far, Chair Gillett, Vice Chair Betkoski and
Commissioner Caron have been collaborative and accommodating, and I’m
proud to have played an active role in PURA’s decision making since day one. I
agree with my colleagues that the utilities are better served by returning their
focus to the substantive work in front of us.”

All the best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-49

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:57 AM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you! You too!

Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:55:37 AM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Mr. Fitch,

Thanks for reaching out. Confirming receipt and will work to provide a response by your deadline.

Have a great weekend!

Best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-50

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be
published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-51

 fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?
8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-52

From: O"Connor, Taren
To: Marc Fitch
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature
Date: Thursday, December 19, 2024 3:36:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Outlook-xt51by3x.png
Outlook-qpozxffi.png
Outlook-1hhnw45k.png
Outlook-ktq1kdkd.png
Outlook-4thhsnic.png
Outlook-eux4f531.png
Outlook-grxe1nue.png
Outlook-4uunesoz.png
Outlook-g5dz2a3z.png
Outlook-cncj1qqg.png
Outlook-dxnq3lfp.png
Outlook-tlra2jx1.png

Mr. Fitch,

Thank you for the follow-up question. As we stated, General Statutes § 4-166(13) defines
the presiding officer as the person designated by the head of the agency to preside at a
hearing. As the head of PURA, Chair Gillett will generally designate herself as the presiding
officer, unless she is unable to perform the function. Notably, although the presiding officer
has numerous powers under Title 16 and the UAPA, they are not without limitation. A majority
of the panel may reverse or modify any order of the presiding officer. Because of this, the
presiding officer will generally ensure a consensus before ruling.

To answer the specific question, the Chair has not acted as the presiding officer on all dockets
or during all hearings held during her tenure. As noted in one of our other responses, for
example, Vice Chairman Betkoski issued a sole commissioner decision in Docket No. 13-01-
32 during the chair’s tenure. Other notable contested proceedings (in these examples, rate
cases) in which other commissioners served as the presiding officer include Connecticut
Water’s previous rate case, Docket No. 20-12-30, which the Vice Chairman presided over, as
well as Docket No. 20-10-31, another water rate case over which Commissioner Caron
presided. Additionally, while PURA oversees the initiation of over 300 dockets each year,
many are routine licensing dockets or other matters in which there are not formal hearings or
intermediary rulings that require action by a presiding officer. While the commissioner panels
for all of these dockets are publicly available through the agency’s case management
database, we do not explicitly track panel assignments, so the previous examples were
provided in good faith based on recent recollections.

Best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-53

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:52 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you for the response.

In regards to the first question, has chairman Gillett been acting as presiding officer is all cases
before PURA? Your answer seems to imply that she has.

The rest of the answers are appreciated and those comments will be included in the piece.

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 4:43:22 PM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Good afternoon,

Questions:
1. Has Marissa Gillett been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?

This question appears to conflate the term "hearing officer," as defined in Section 16-2,
with "presiding officer," as defined in Section 4-166(13). It is important to note that
these terms are not synonymous and carry distinct legal definitions and procedural
implications. Therefore the answer is no - the Chair does not act as a hearing officer. A
hearing officer is a member of PURA staff (usually a staff attorney) designated under
General Statutes § 16-2(c) to conduct a proceeding, ascertain facts, and issue a
proposed final decision under § 4-179 for the commissioner panel’s consideration. If a
hearing officer is assigned, the commissioners are generally not involved in the
proceeding until a proposed final decision has been rendered by the hearing officer.
The Authority designates hearing officers only on rare occasions and usually for less
consequential matters. Technically, the panel of commissioners could delegate the

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-54

hearing officer responsibilities to one or more commissioners; however, this power has
never been exercised to our knowledge.

For the vast majority of proceedings, unless a commissioner recuses themselves or is

absent for an extended period, each commissioner assigned to the panel hears each
case, participates in hearings (unless they have a scheduling conflict), receives all
filings and notices in the docket, and engages in deliberations with other
commissioners and staff throughout the proceeding. Importantly, all commissioners
assigned to a panel vote on all final decisions. Therefore, for practically all
proceedings, either the full panel or, at least, a majority of the commissioners, have
heard the matter and read the record. Each commissioner has access to and reads the
record of the proceeding, participates in all hearings or reviews transcripts, and
engages on both substantive and procedural questions before the Authority.

2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person
panel can decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of
panel assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?

Every panel assignment is part of the public record and is available through PURA’s
public case management database. For most of its recent history, and until August
2024, PURA has only had 3 commissioners; therefore, the panel has, by default, been
the full panel of commissioners. As noted above, in the rare event that the panel
delegates a matter to a hearing officer, the designation is completed through
consensus of the commissioners with the designation noticed to all parties in the
docket. The Authority is not aware of any objection to the designation of a hearing
officer in a proceeding.

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. The designation is made by the
Chair in the public case management database and through notices in the docket.   

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. The Authority has only identified one
exception to this over the past five years, where a single commissioner issued a final
decision, and that was issued by Vice Chairman Jack Betkoski – not the chair.
See Docket No. 13-01-32, JOINT APPLICATION OF WIND COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC
AND THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF A PROPOSED RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WIND
COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC - INTERCONNECTION DISPUTE.

3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a

correspondence on intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-55

 decision of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by the
majority of commissioners?

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. Under the UAPA, the 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.
Although the presiding officer exercises these and other powers, the other
commissioners remain engaged in the proceeding and offer advice and input on all issues
before the Authority. Importantly, if a majority of commissioners disagrees with the presiding
officer on a particular ruling, such majority may issue an appropriate order. To our knowledge,
this has not occurred in PURA’s recent history, demonstrating that the presiding officer’s
exercise of authority has been supported by or consented to by at least a majority of
commissioners.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Authority has consulted with the Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) 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. Separately, lawyers for OAG have, in a public hearing, specifically challenged the
narrative advanced by the utilities around process “so that on the record for this inevitable
appeal, there will be the position of the Attorney General on some of those allegations.”
CNG/SCG Oral Argument, Tr. 105:4 – 106:20. The OAG attorney first noted that the allegedly
objectionable practice “has been the practice in this PURA for [at least] 25 years” and that the
utilities’ position would “bring [the Authority] to a grinding halt [and is] just not a serious
argument.” The OAG attorney continued to harshly criticize such procedural claims as being
made “on the most contextual and manufactured evidence,” “amount[ing] to a nothing
burger,” “nonsense,” “beyond silly,” and “absurd . . . on many different levels.” The OAG
attorney concludes “I just don’t see the logic behind it.” Consequently, the utilities’
procedural allegations have been subject to outside scrutiny and found to be devoid of legal
merit.

4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been
used for ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly
1,000 substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the
COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA commissioners to
approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was this a decision solely by
Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the other
commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in
the state?

Under the UAPA, the presiding officer is authorized to exercise a variety of powers in
conducting an orderly proceeding, including issuing procedural and intermediary rulings. As

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-56

noted above, if a majority of commissioner object to a specific ruling, that majority may issue
appropriate orders. This process permits the Authority to efficiently manage proceedings
while ensuring that all commissioners have an opportunity to weigh in on any ruling.   

For example, in the recent Southern CT Gas and CT Natural Gas rate case, the
Authority processed 121 motions before issuing a final decision. This included:15 motions for
party or intervenor requests or consultant notices; 26 motions for extensions of time;
62 motions for protective treatment; and 22 other procedural or evidentiary motions. The vast
majority of the motions were granted or granted in part. At no point did a majority of the
commissioners disagree with any of these motion rulings and exercise their right to issue
appropriate orders. Importantly, the commissioners engage in a continuous consultation
process on all matters in a proceeding, including through monthly decisional staff meetings on
all open matters, bi-weekly commissioner meetings, ad hoc conversations and meetings, and
by email. Further, the commissioners are all in the hearing room when evidentiary issues and
disputes arise and may discuss the issue in public or request a recess. All commissioners
have the opportunity to weigh in on any issue, both before and after a ruling is issued.

In addition, to the extent any person feels aggrieved by what the person deems a
substantive ruling of the Authority, whether by the presiding officer or by a majority of the
commissioners, that person is entitled to seek an administrative appeal. No one is deprived
any procedural rights based on who issues the ruling.

Consequently, with respect to Motion No. 88 issued in Docket No. 20-03-15 referenced
above, the Authority received a motion from elected leaders with only one entity (Operation
Fuel) commenting and no one filing an objection. 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. The matter was discussed with all commissioners in advance of the ruling. 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.

5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?

In short: the Connecticut General Assembly.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the General Assembly
establishes by statute which cases are deemed “contested” and subject to procedural
safeguards of the UAPA. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health,
347 Conn. 317, 328–29 (2023) (“The legislature has the primary and continuing role in
deciding which class of proceedings should enjoy the full panoply of procedural
protections afforded by the UAPA to contested cases, including the right to appellate
review by the judiciary. Deciding which class of cases qualifies for contested case
status reflects an important matter of public policy and the primary responsibility for
formulating public policy must remain with the legislature.”).

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-57

 The courts also have an important role in interpreting the governing statutes and
applying a three-part test to determine whether a proceeding is subject to the UAPA.
See High Watch Recovery, 347 Conn. at 328.
Importantly, the agency conducting a proceeding does not determine whether the
proceeding is contested or uncontested. This is for the obvious reason that the agency
issuing a decision should not be the arbiter of whether its decision is subject to
appeal. In fact, the agency’s characterization of a proceeding as either contested or
uncontested is irrelevant to the legal analysis. See High Watch Recovery Ctr., Inc. v.
Dep't of Pub. Health, 207 Conn.App. 397, 416 (2023) (“the hearing officer could not
have converted the proceeding into a contested case by her words alone, . . .”).
If a party in an agency proceeding believes it has been aggrieved by the agency, the
party may seek an administrative appeal. At that time, the court will determine, based
on the applicable statutes, whether the proceeding is contested and, therefore,
subject to the UAPA.

6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held
with the other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do
the other commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?

Proposed final decisions are drafted by decisional staff, which include accountants,
finance specialists, rate design experts, engineers, research analysts, and lawyers. Proposed
final decisions are not voted on by commissioners and have no legal or precedential effect.
The Authority uses the Microsoft 365 document sharing platform Sharepoint to provide access
for decisional staff and commissioners to docket documents, including proposed final
decisions. Consequently, all commissioners may access and review proposed final decisions
and other docket documents in real time, at any time. The proposed final decision is typically
issued several weeks before the commissioners vote on the final decision. This permits time
for written exceptions and oral argument from docket participants, as well as time for the
commissioners to deliberate on any issues in the proceeding.   

In addition to this process, the Authority holds monthly sector meetings where
decisional lead staff give comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before
the agency, as well as several other opportunities for review and discussion around a specific
case or matter being considered. 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. Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place regularly until they
were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.

7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they
were not given a fair hearing because the process has not followed state
statute?

No. 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

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-58

 decision and to raise any claims, including due process claims, in that appeal. Parties
will often resort to due process claims when the substance of their appeal is unlikely to
prevail in court. 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 — a de facto acknowledgement that their
substantive arguments lack merit or are manifestly anemic. .

8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

The following statement can be attributed to Chair Gillett:

"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. 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). 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. I look forward to putting these
unsubstantiated accusations behind us all and returning to the important work
ahead.”

The following statement can be attributed to Vice Chair Betkoski:

“This is much ado over nothing. In the close to three decades that I have served
as a utility commissioner, the executive secretary’s signature has always been
affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a docket. I take great
pride in always conducting work alongside my fellow commissioners and staff,
with the utmost respect for and adherence to the law.”

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Arconti:

“In my five months of service so far, Chair Gillett, Vice Chair Betkoski and
Commissioner Caron have been collaborative and accommodating, and I’m
proud to have played an active role in PURA’s decision making since day one. I
agree with my colleagues that the utilities are better served by returning their
focus to the substantive work in front of us.”

All the best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-59

ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:57 AM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you! You too!

Marc E. Fitch
CT Inside Investigator
Investigative Reporter
203-240-9085 (c)
InsideInvestigator.org

From: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 10:55:37 AM
To: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

Mr. Fitch,

Thanks for reaching out. Confirming receipt and will work to provide a response by your deadline.

Have a great weekend!

Best,

Taren O'Connor
Director of Legislation, Regulations and Communications
Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
10 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051
p: 860-827-2689| e: [email protected]
ct.gov/pura

From: Marc Fitch <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 12:07 PM
To: O'Connor, Taren <[email protected]>

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-60

Subject: Media Inquiry: PURA Chair acting as hearing officer/ executive secretary signature

EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click any links or open any
attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. O’Connor,

My name is Marc Fitch, and I am a reporter with CT Inside Investigator.

I am working on a feature story about the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, namely that
Chairwoman Marissa Gillett has been issuing rulings and determinations on docket motions under
the name of PURA Executive Secretary Jeffrey Gaudiosi without indicating that it was a decision of
the hearing officer, leading utility companies to believe such decisions were made by the full
Authority. According to information I have received, this has been done roughly 5,000 times since
2020, and roughly 1,000 of those decisions were allegedly substantive in nature – encompassing
legal conclusions and findings of fact.

While I understand that PURA’s response to these allegations was that it was “much ado about
nothing,” I do have some questions I am hoping you can address for the story, which will be
published on 1/5. The questions are listed below. Feel free to respond via email or we can set up a
phone call, or I can meet in person (I live in New Britain). Just let me know what works best for you.

1. Has Marissa Gillet been acting as hearing officer for all matters before PURA?
2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-person panel can
decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there any record of panel assignments for
dockets or votes to appoint a hearing officer?
3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a correspondence on
intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that it is decision of the hearing officer, or
does it mean a decision or finding by the majority of commissioners?
4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously been used for
ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to roughly 1,000 substantive
decisions, including the April 2023 decision to extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was
there a vote by the PURA commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was
this a decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so, why did the
other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected nearly every ratepayer in the
state?
5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?
6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings held with the
other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in advance do the other
commissioners see the draft decision before voting on it?
7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that they were not given a
fair hearing because the process has not followed state statute?
8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

In order to include your comments in the feature article, I will need to get responses back by end of
day, Wednesday 12/18. I thank you for your time and consideration and look forward to hearing
from you.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-61

Best,

Marc E. Fitch
Senior Investigative Reporter
CT Inside Investigator
www.insideinvestigator.org
[email protected]
203-240-9085

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-62

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-63
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-64
25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-65
 Media Inquiry – CT Inside Investigator

Reporter: Marc E. Fitch/[email protected] / 203-240-9085 /

www.insideinvestigator.org
Deadline: COB, Wednesday, December 18, 2024
Expected Date of Publication: Sunday, January 5, 2025

Questions:
1. Has Marissa Gillett been acting as hearing officer for all matters before
PURA?

No. The Chair does not act as a hearing officer. A hearing officer is a member of
PURA staff (usually a staff attorney) designated under General Statutes § 16-2(c)
to conduct a proceeding, ascertain facts, and issue a proposed final decision
under § 4-179 for the commissioner panel’s consideration. If a hearing officer is
assigned, the commissioners are generally not involved in the proceeding until a
proposed final decision has been rendered by the hearing officer. The Authority
designates hearing officers only on rare occasions and usually for less
consequential matters. Technically, the panel of commissioners could delegate
the hearing officer responsibilities to one or more commissioners; however, this
power has never been exercised to our knowledge.

For the vast majority of proceedings, unless a commissioner recuses themselves

or is absent for an extended period, each commissioner assigned to the panel
hears each case, participates in hearings (unless they have a scheduling
conflict), receives all filings and notices in the docket, and engages in
deliberations with other commissioners and staff throughout the proceeding.
Importantly, all commissioners assigned to a panel vote on all final decisions.
Therefore, for practically all proceedings, either the full panel or, at least, a
majority of the commissioners, have heard the matter and read the record. Each
commissioner has access to and reads the record of the proceeding, participates
in all hearings or reviews transcripts, and engages on both substantive and
procedural questions before the Authority.

2. State statute says the PURA chair can assign a 3-person panel and that 3-
person panel can decide to assign a hearing officer to a docket. Is there
any record of panel assignments for dockets or votes to appoint a hearing
officer?

Every panel assignment is part of the public record and is available through
PURA’s public case management database. For most of its recent history, and
until August 2024, PURA has only had 3 commissioners; therefore, the panel
has, by default, been the full panel of commissioners. As noted above, in the
rare event that the panel delegates a matter to a hearing officer, the designation

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-66

 is completed through consensus of the commissioners with the designation
noticed to all parties in the docket. The Authority is not aware of any objection to
the designation of a hearing officer in a proceeding.

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. The designation is
made by the Chair in the public case management database and through notices
in the docket.

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. The Authority has
only identified one exception to this over the past five years, where a single
commissioner issued a final decision, and that was issued by Vice Chairman
Jack Betkoski – not the chair. See Docket No. 13-01-32, JOINT APPLICATION
OF WIND COLEBROOK SOUTH LLC AND THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND
POWER COMPANY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED
RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH WIND COLEBROOK
SOUTH LLC - INTERCONNECTION DISPUTE.

3. When only the executive secretary’s name appears at the bottom of a

correspondence on intermediary matters and motions, does that mean that
it is decision of the hearing officer, or does it mean a decision or finding by
the majority of commissioners?

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. Under the UAPA, the
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.

Although the presiding officer exercises these and other powers, the other
commissioners remain engaged in the proceeding and offer advice and input on all
issues before the Authority. Importantly, if a majority of commissioners disagrees with
the presiding officer on a particular ruling, such majority may issue an appropriate order.
To our knowledge, this has not occurred in PURA’s recent history, demonstrating that
the presiding officer’s exercise of authority has been supported by or consented to by at
least a majority of commissioners.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-67

 Out of an abundance of caution, the Authority has consulted with the Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) 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. Separately, lawyers for OAG have, in a public hearing, specifically
challenged the narrative advanced by the utilities around process “so that on the record
for this inevitable appeal, there will be the position of the Attorney General on some of
those allegations.” CNG/SCG Oral Argument, Tr. 105:4 – 106:20. The OAG attorney
first noted that the allegedly objectionable practice “has been the practice in this PURA
for [at least] 25 years” and that the utilities’ position would “bring [the Authority] to a
grinding halt [and is] just not a serious argument.” The OAG attorney continued to
harshly criticize such procedural claims as being made “on the most contextual and
manufactured evidence,” “amount[ing] to a nothing burger,” “nonsense,” “beyond silly,”
and “absurd . . . on many different levels.” The OAG attorney concludes “I just don’t see
the logic behind it.” Consequently, the utilities’ procedural allegations have been
subject to outside scrutiny and found to be devoid of legal merit.

4. While the use of the executive secretary’s signature block has previously
been used for ministerial motions, it also appears to have been affixed to
roughly 1,000 substantive decisions, including the April 2023 decision to
extend the COVID-era shutoff moratorium. Was there a vote by the PURA
commissioners to approve motion 88 in docket 20-01-15, or was this a
decision solely by Chairwoman Gillett acting as the hearing officer? If so,
why did the other commissioners not vote on this matter, as it affected
nearly every ratepayer in the state?

Under the UAPA, the presiding officer is authorized to exercise a variety of

powers in conducting an orderly proceeding, including issuing procedural and
intermediary rulings. As noted above, if a majority of commissioner object to a specific
ruling, that majority may issue appropriate orders. This process permits the Authority to
efficiently manage proceedings while ensuring that all commissioners have an
opportunity to weigh in on any ruling.

For example, in the recent Southern CT Gas and CT Natural Gas rate case, the
Authority processed 121 motions before issuing a final decision. This included:15
motions for party or intervenor requests or consultant notices; 26 motions for extensions
of time; 62 motions for protective treatment; and 22 other procedural or evidentiary
motions. The vast majority of the motions were granted or granted in part. At no point
did a majority of the commissioners disagree with any of these motion rulings and
exercise their right to issue appropriate orders. Importantly, the commissioners engage
in a continuous consultation process on all matters in a proceeding, including through
monthly sector meetings, bi-weekly commissioner meetings, ad hoc conversations and
meetings, and by email. Further, the commissioners are in the hearing room when
evidentiary issues and disputes arise and may discuss the issue in public or request a
recess. All commissioners have the opportunity to weigh in on any issue, both before
and after a ruling is issued.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-68

 In addition, to the extent any person feels aggrieved by what the person deems a
substantive ruling of the Authority, whether by the presiding officer or by a majority of
the commissioners, that person is entitled to seek an administrative appeal. No one is
deprived any procedural rights based on who issues the ruling.

Consequently, with respect to Motion No. 88 issued in Docket No. 20-03-15

referenced above, the Authority received a motion from elected leaders with only one
entity (Operation Fuel) commenting and no one filing an objection. 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. The matter was discussed with all
commissioners in advance of the ruling. 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.

5. Who decides if a docket is contested or uncontested?

In short: the Connecticut General Assembly.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the General
Assembly establishes by statute which cases are deemed “contested” and
subject to procedural safeguards of the UAPA. See High Watch Recovery Ctr.,
Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 347 Conn. 317, 328–29 (2023) (“The legislature has
the primary and continuing role in deciding which class of proceedings should
enjoy the full panoply of procedural protections afforded by the UAPA to
contested cases, including the right to appellate review by the judiciary. Deciding
which class of cases qualifies for contested case status reflects an important
matter of public policy and the primary responsibility for formulating public policy
must remain with the legislature.”).

The courts also have an important role in interpreting the governing statutes and
applying a three-part test to determine whether a proceeding is subject to the
UAPA. See High Watch Recovery, 347 Conn. at 328.

Importantly, the agency conducting a proceeding does not determine whether the
proceeding is contested or uncontested. This is for the obvious reason that the
agency issuing a decision should not the arbiter of whether its decision is subject
to appeal. In fact, the agency’s characterization of a proceeding as either
contested or uncontested is irrelevant to the legal analysis. See High Watch
Recovery Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 207 Conn.App. 397, 416 (2023) (“the
hearing officer could not have converted the proceeding into a contested case by
her words alone, . . .”).

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-69

 If a party in an agency proceeding believes it has been aggrieved by the agency,
the party may seek an administrative appeal. At that time, the court will
determine, based on the applicable statutes, whether the proceeding is contested
and, therefore, subject to the UAPA.

6. Who prepares a draft decision and what is the process? Are there meetings
held with the other commissioners regarding a draft decision? How far in
advance do the other commissioners see the draft decision before voting
on it?

Proposed final decisions are drafted by decisional staff, which include

accountants, finance specialists, rate design experts, engineers, research analysts, and
lawyers. Proposed final decisions are not voted on by commissioners and have no
legal or precedential effect. The Authority uses the Microsoft 365 document sharing
platform Sharepoint to provide access for decisional staff and commissioners to docket
documents, including proposed final decisions. Consequently, all commissioners may
access and review proposed final decisions and other docket documents in real time, at
any time. The proposed final decision is typically issued several weeks before the
commissioners vote on the final decision. This permits time for written exceptions and
oral argument from docket participants, as well as time for the commissioners to
deliberate on any issues in the proceeding.

In addition to this process, the Authority holds monthly sector meetings where
lead staff give comprehensive reports on all active and upcoming matters before the
agency, as well as several other opportunities for review and discussion around a
specific case or matter being considered. Commissioners always have the ability to
request a meeting with decisional staff through PURA’s chief of staff, as well as partake
in scheduled briefings and deliberations. Bi-weekly commissioner meetings took place
regularly until they were discontinued at other commissioners’ request.

7. Are you at all concerned that utility companies could argue in court that
they were not given a fair hearing because the process has not followed
state statute?

No. 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. Parties will often resort to due process claims when the
substance of their appeal is unlikely to prevail in court. 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 — a de facto acknowledgement that their substantive arguments lack
merit or are manifestly anemic. As such, the utilities’ strategy to advance such
claims makes the Authority less concerned about the merits of the administrative
appeals.

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-70

8. Any other comments you would like to supply would be welcome.

The following statement can be attributed to Chair Gillett:

"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. 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). 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. I look forward to putting these unsubstantiated
accusations behind us all and returning to the important work ahead.”

The following statement can be attributed to Vice Chair Betkoski:

“This is much ado over nothing. In the close to three decades that I have
served as a utility commissioner, the executive secretary’s signature has
always been affixed to motion rulings and other interim issuances in a
docket. I take great pride in always conducting work alongside my fellow
commissioners and staff, with the utmost respect for and adherence to the
law. The utilities may disagree with the decision-making of PURA, but they
should keep their focus on the substance where it belongs.”

The following statement can be attributed to Commissioner Michael Caron:

“The utilities are making a mountain out of a molehill. Each commissioner
has an equal vote on decisions adopted by PURA, and while we reach
consensus in the overwhelming majority of our dockets, we have
occasionally split in our thinking, and that has been reflected in motion
rulings and decisions over the years.”

25-7-7 Production Inside Investigator-71