Gov. Ned Lamont’s sweeping rebuild of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority marks the end of one of the most combative eras in Connecticut’s utility regulation.
That’s a good thing for Connecticut businesses and residents.
With Chairwoman Marissa Gillett stepping down after a five-year tenure marked by public feuds, lawsuits and calls for impeachment, and four new commissioners — led by consumer advocate Thomas Wiehl — now taking the reins, the agency faces a chance to reset.
Gillett’s departure was as dramatic as her tenure. She resigned in September after months of escalating conflict with utilities, lawmakers and even fellow commissioners. In her resignation letter, she cited the emotional toll of constant disputes and the cycle of litigation that, in her words, pulled “attention and resources away from what matters most: keeping rates just and reasonable, improving service, and planning a resilient, reliable energy future.”
To her supporters, Gillett was a reformer unafraid to challenge powerful companies. Under her leadership, PURA embraced performance-based ratemaking — tying utility profits to customer outcomes rather than guaranteed returns — and took a notably harder line on rate-increase requests, often approving far less than what utilities sought.
Her critics, however, saw an agency veering into activism, driven more by political combat than balanced regulation. The state’s major utilities, Eversource and United Illuminating, accused PURA of arbitrary decisions that cut deeply into their allowed revenues and contributed to credit downgrades that could hinder investment in Connecticut’s grid.
Lamont’s newly appointed board almost completely remakes PURA’s composition. Wiehl, the legal and regulatory director for the Office of Consumer Counsel, will be joined by former GOP state Rep. Holly Cheeseman, Michigan State University energy policy professor Janice Beecher, Greenwich energy and sustainable infrastructure investor Everett Smith, and active commissioner David Arconti Jr.
Their collective backgrounds — spanning consumer advocacy, academia, finance and government — represent a blend of perspectives that could bring greater balance and stability to PURA after years of turbulence.
That’s precisely what the agency needs. Regulation is not supposed to be theater. The public quarrels between Gillett and the utilities may have drawn attention, but they eroded trust in the state’s regulatory environment.
Connecticut cannot afford that instability. A healthy tension between regulators and utilities is normal, even necessary, but constant confrontation discourages investment and delays modernization projects the state badly needs.
The new leadership should return PURA to its core mission: fair, lawful, fact-based ratemaking. The agency shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for the industry, but it also shouldn’t act as a consumer-protection crusader. Connecticut already has an Office of Consumer Counsel for that.
PURA’s strength lies in its ability to make consistent, transparent decisions that balance cost, reliability and long-term infrastructure needs.
Reliability, in fact, is one area where Connecticut performs relatively well. Utilities have invested heavily in storm-hardening and grid upgrades, efforts that could be jeopardized if the regulatory environment remains unpredictable.
If companies fear that legitimate costs won’t be recoverable, they’ll scale back or redirect capital elsewhere — a lose-lose for ratepayers and the state’s energy future.
There’s a lot at stake, including the future reliability of Connecticut’s electric grid and the cost of energy in the state, which is already among the highest in the country. Will a tougher stance on rate approvals lower energy bills? Perhaps, but it doesn’t mean regulators can bend the law to achieve that end.
And, blaming high electricity costs solely on Eversource or Avangrid is misguided. Those companies only distribute power — they don’t generate it. Lawmakers made that decision in 1998, when Connecticut deregulated its electric industry.
Since then, a complex mix of factors has driven up prices — from the region’s dependence on natural gas and limited pipeline capacity, to state-mandated renewable programs and infrastructure expenses tied to maintaining poles, wires and substations in a densely populated area.
In short, Connecticut’s high electric rates stem not from one culprit, but from decades of policy decisions and regional market realities. Going green is expensive, and ratepayers ultimately foot the bill.
Wiehl’s early comments struck the right tone, promising collaboration and inclusion. His background suggests he’ll protect consumers, but his success will depend on restoring confidence — among utilities, lawmakers and the public — that PURA’s decisions are guided by evidence, not ideology.