Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) Chairwoman Marissa Gillett shrugged off suggestions to decouple PURA from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) during a webinar hosted by the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (CTLCV) on Sept. 19. Gillett dismissed the idea as unnecessary, claiming it receives “more attention than it warrants.”
“There are better uses of our collective time than to focus on that question,” Gillett said, adding there is “no overwhelming reason” to pursue the decoupling. While emphasizing PURA’s independence, she described DEEP as merely representing the governor’s position in public proceedings.
Gillett’s dismissive remarks raise serious concerns about the true nature of PURA’s relationship with DEEP and whether the agency is genuinely protecting ratepayers amid soaring utility costs. Her stance also stands in stark contrast to the views of former PURA members, who have been advocating for decoupling ever since DEEP, with PURA under its auspices, was created.
A Marriage Made in Heaven?
PURA’s origin goes back to 1853, originally established to regulate the railroad industry and protect the public’s interest in matters of safety, property rights, and accommodations. Over time, as technology advanced, the agency’s jurisdiction expanded to include oversight of electric, gas, water, telegraph and telephone companies.
By 1980, the agency had evolved into an independent body known as the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). That independence lasted until 2011, when the DPUC was folded into the newly formed DEEP, and rebranded as PURA. Critics argue that this move compromised its regulatory independence and tied utility oversight to environmental policy goals, sparking ongoing calls for decoupling the agencies.
The hope was that PURA would help lower the state’s sky-high energy rates. At the time, Connecticut’s electric rates were among the highest in the country (and still are), and supporters of the merger believed it would streamline decision-making and drive costs down.
Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk), a vocal proponent of the merger, promised big things on the Senate floor in 2011. “We are finally going to have the coordination that we need,” he said, boasting that bringing several departments under one roof would create “one very clear and loud voice” for the state’s energy policy. Duff claimed that failing to pass the legislation would result in higher prices but predicted that signing the bill into law would lead to lower rates.
He eagerly encouraged his colleagues to support the bill, saying he looked forward “to the fruits of the labor that so many have put into this today” and hoped for “a cleaner and better State of Connecticut.”
But not everyone was sold. Former Sen. Len Fasano (R-North Haven) raised serious concerns about the new super-agency’s massive power. “What gives me a little bit of pause is having so much power under one person,” Fasano said, pointing out that it came with “very little checks.” While he didn’t oppose the bill outright, Fasano expressed deep reservations, suggesting the legislation should be passed with caution and potentially revisited down the line.
The bill passed in both houses with bipartisan support.
The Honeymoon is Over
It didn’t take long for Sen. Len Fasano’s concerns about the merger of PURA and DEEP to be validated. Less than a year after the merger, a bill was introduced concerning PURA’s autonomy. Members of PURA’s staff submitted strong written testimony opposing a provision that kept PURA under DEEP’s administrative control.
“PURA must be completely independent from DEEP so that there is no connection between the two agencies,” the staff argued, comparing the setup to “putting a judge in a courtroom under a commissioner who has the ability to direct the judge in their decision-making.”
They accused then-DEEP Commissioner Dan Esty of having “huge conflicts of interest,” claiming he wielded too much control by setting energy policy, approving programs and their funding, and then directing PURA to implement his agenda. One glaring example cited was the electric and gas conservation programs for which ratepayers were forced to fund costing more than $253 million.
PURA staff also pointed out that DEEP was approving policies that were driving up utility bills, accusing then-Gov. Dannel Malloy and Esty of pushing an aggressive energy efficiency agenda without addressing the cost to ratepayers.
They claimed Gov. Malloy and Esty were determined to make Connecticut a national leader in energy efficiency, regardless of the financial burden it would place on consumers. PURA staff noted that neither wanted to discuss the skyrocketing rates nor the cost per kilowatt of these initiatives. They warned that the administration was hiding the real impact on residential, commercial and industrial customers, who would face “extremely high’ utility bills as a result.
House Republicans also voiced their concerns, fearing PURA would be controlled by DEEP from the start. However, their fears grew after the “Smart Meter” controversy, where PURA initially rejected Connecticut Light & Power’s $863 million proposal, citing that the benefits didn’t justify the cost.
Before the decision was finalized, Esty stepped in, advising PURA to suspend the decision based on his energy policy authority. While then-Attorney General George Jepsen ruled Esty acted independently, Republicans argued this was clear interference, showing PURA cannot operate freely under DEEP’s influence. They insisted that separating PURA from DEEP would prevent undue interference and ensure regulatory independence.
Requests to completely dissolve the relationship between PURA and DEEP did not make it in the bill, which ultimately died in the House.
Since then, both Republicans and Democrats have drafted numerous bills aimed at making PURA independent again, but every attempt has failed — most without even getting a public hearing.
PURA, for its part, hasn’t stopped pushing for independence. A 2015 memo sent to the Malloy administration, reported by NBC Connecticut, called for a “radical restructuring” and argued that the arrangement of placing PURA under DEEP was an “unusual step” not replicated anywhere else in the country. The memo highlighted DEEP’s control over PURA’s budget, staffing and personnel decisions, calling the relationship “dysfunctional.”
Gov. Malloy’s response was clear: if you don’t like it, resign.
Former PURA Chairman Arthur House echoed these concerns in a 2021 Op-Ed, where he exposed deeper problems. House, who served as chairman from 2012 to 2016, revealed that PURA — meant to impartially regulate utilities — was being controlled by DEEP, which was often a party in the very cases PURA was supposed to oversee.
“Connecticut is unique in the country with this unusual structure,” House wrote in 2021. “No other state requires its utility regulators to report to an agency that is a party before it for the obvious reason that regulators are to render fair and reasonable decisions based on facts and law and not be influenced by a party appearing before them.”
He warned that while Connecticut had managed to avoid major scandals, relying on the integrity of individuals was no substitute for fixing a broken system. He cited troubling examples of DEEP interfering in PURA decisions, including efforts to delay rulings and sending “explicit language” to be included in a docket decision — interference he said was “fortunately ignored.”
House likened the situation to a courtroom where one party controls the outcome of the decision — a scenario that would spark public outrage. He called on the General Assembly to fix the flawed system and make PURA truly independent, free from political or policy influence.
Since House’s Op-Ed, at least eight bills have been introduced to address the issue. None have passed.
A Decade of Failed Promises
Now, more than a decade later, Sen. Duff’s prediction of lower electric rates has fallen flat. Despite his promises, Connecticut’s electric bills remain among the highest in the nation, proving that the merger didn’t deliver the lower costs he assured ratepayers were on the horizon.
It’s interesting after years of various parties calling for separation that Gillett is so quick to dismiss the idea of PURA splitting from DEEP. But could she simply be echoing her leadership’s talking points?
Back in 2021, DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes made it clear she didn’t think decoupling would help consumers. During a public hearing, Dykes downplayed the idea, saying, “I don’t think it would. I think it would have fiscal implications for the state, in terms of budget impacts. I don’t think it would change anything about how PURA conducts its work, and therefore, I don’t think it would benefit ratepayers if this bill were enacted.”
Calls to sever the connection between PURA and DEEP persist today. On July 25, Sen. Ryan Fazio (R-Greenwich) and Sen. Minority Leader Stephen Harding (R-Brookfield) emphasized the need for reform, stating, “Connecticut must restructure the state bureaucracy to reflect common practice in other states by separating the DEEP, the policy-making agency, and PURA, the adjudicatory agency. We need checks and balances.”
Meanwhile, in response to skyrocketing electric bills, House and Senate Republicans are currently circulating a petition to force a special session. Part of their agenda is restoring PURA’s independence by cutting it loose from DEEP.
Republicans argue that separating the regulatory and policy making agencies is crucial for keeping energy rates in check and ensuring real accountability — a move they say the state desperately needs to protect consumers.
Gillett’s willingness to blow off years of warnings and concerns about the tangled web of PURA and DEEP is telling. Former PURA chairs, staff members and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have all sounded the alarm over the years, pointing to clear conflicts of interest and the detrimental impact on ratepayers.
Yet, Gillett seems content to ignore these warnings and carry on with business as usual. Her refusal to address these long-standing issues raises serious doubts about whether she truly prioritizes the interests of ratepayers or simply aims to maintain the status quo. This continued inaction, despite mounting evidence of the need for reform, is a disservice to Connecticut residents, who continue to bear the burden of high utility rates. Because how can a regulatory body fairly oversee an industry when it’s tied to the very agency setting the policies?
