Connecticut utility regulators have asked a state court to dismiss constitutional claims against them, arguing that the recent resignation of the embattled chair of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority renders the utilities’ lawsuit moot. The motion for re-argument, filed Oct. 15 in Hartford Superior Court, comes just days after PURA Chair Marissa Gillett resigned effective […]
Connecticut utility regulators have asked a state court to dismiss constitutional claims against them, arguing that the recent resignation of the embattled chair of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority renders the utilities' lawsuit moot.
The motion for re-argument, filed Oct. 15 in Hartford Superior Court, comes just days after PURA Chair Marissa Gillett
resigned effective Oct. 10 amid mounting legal and political pressure over her management of the regulatory agency.
State attorneys argue that Gillett's departure eliminates the utilities' ability to obtain relief from her, and that the remaining two commissioners — Michael Caron and David Arconti — should be dismissed from the case because the complaint alleges no wrongdoing by them.
"The Complaint does not make any claims of improper acts or conduct with respect to defendant-commissioners Caron or Arconti," Assistant Attorneys General James Caley and Seth Hollander wrote in the filing. "They are simply not connected to the unconstitutional acts complained of."
Eversource Energy, Yankee Gas Services, Aquarion Water Co. and UIL Holdings filed the lawsuit in January, alleging PURA violated their due process rights by
allowing Gillett to unilaterally control hundreds of regulatory proceedings since 2020.
The utilities claim Gillett improperly designated herself as presiding officer in nearly all cases and issued substantive rulings through PURA's executive secretary without full commission votes, then concealed these practices by labeling decisions as coming from "the Authority."
In an Oct. 3 ruling, Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Stewart allowed the federal constitutional claims to proceed against the individual commissioners in their official capacities, while dismissing state law claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The state now argues that the ruling should be reconsidered in light of Gillett's resignation and that any remaining claims are barred by 11th Amendment immunity and judicial immunity.
The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion for re-argument.
