FactSet Utilities has consistently ranked Connecticut as one of the least productive regulatory jurisdictions in the United States. The degree of this dysfunction became more pronounced in the latter stages of former Commission Chair Marissa Gillett’s tenure. Gillett was appointed to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) in 2019 by Governor Ned Lamont, marking a departure from a historically less-contentious, more consensus-driven regulatory regime. Her approach emphasized aggressive consumer advocacy and pushed for the adoption of performance-based ratemaking. However, critics argue that Gillett also centralized authority to an unprecedented degree.
Under Connecticut General Statutes § 16-2(c), substantive proceedings require a panel of at least three commissioners, with the panel designating a presiding officer. Litigation filed in January 2025 by Connecticut’s major utilities alleged that Gillett had been self-designating as presiding officer in virtually all proceedings since January 2020, issuing rulings unilaterally over the signature of PURA's Executive Secretary (a non-commissioner employee) while maintaining no records of commissioner voting and effectively blocking utilities from appealing rulings to a full panel. Gillett's tenure ended abruptly with her resignation in October 2025 amid mounting legal pressure and political scrutiny. The following month, a Superior Court ruling in the related matter CNG v. PURA found this conduct contrary to law. According to court documents, the outstanding suit from January 2025 was subsequently dismissed with prejudice on May 27th, 2026, following the reconstituted PURA's adoption of corrective administrative directives, potentially clearing the way for a more-constructive regulatory framework.
Following Gillett’s resignation, Connecticut initiated a structural reset of PURA’s leadership, including efforts to expand the Commission to its full statutory membership and rebalance governance. Existing Commissioner David Arconti was retained, while four new members, including a new chair, were added on an interim basis before being officially confirmed May 6th, 2026.
New PURA Makeup
Thomas Wiehl – Chairman
Attorney who spent much of his career at the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, rising to Legal and Regulatory Director. He also has private sector experience as General Counsel at a Connecticut petroleum distributor.
David Arconti – Vice Chairman
Former state legislator who served on the Energy and Technology Committee during his tenure in the Connecticut House of Representatives. He also worked in government relations for Avangrid before joining the PURA.
Janice Beecher – Commissioner
Former Director of Michigan State University's Institute of Public Utilities.
Holly Cheeseman – Commissioner
Former state legislator who served on the Energy and Technology Committee during her tenure in the Connecticut House of Representatives. She also has a background in corporate communications prior to her political career.
Everett Smith – Commissioner
Energy investor and finance executive with experience in energy infrastructure. His career spans senior roles at GE Capital, focused on energy investments, and founding his own firm developing and investing in distributed renewable energy projects.
These appointments filled the full five-member statutory roster for the first time in years, signaling a deliberate move back to multi-member governance and procedural balance. Even before the May confirmation, incoming commissioners offered a preview of how the reconstituted PURA might operate going forward. The outcomes of two reheard rate cases help illustrate the potential shift. Yankee Gas (Eversource, Docket 24-12-01) and United Illuminating (Avangrid, Docket 24-10-04) both had ongoing rate cases at the time of Gillett’s departure. Proposed final decisions were issued for both cases in September before Gillett resigned. Following Gillett’s departure, final decisions in these cases were issued by the remaining commissioners in late October and early November, resulting in starkly different outcomes from those put forth in the proposed decisions in both cases. Ultimately both cases were granted petitions for rehearing, with the reheard decisions being issued in March of this year. As seen below, both reheard decisions continued the trend of slight improvement from a utility perspective.
The Path Forward
While Iberdrola privatized Avangrid in December 2024, Eversource continues to trade at a notable discount to peers; FactSet data shows an NTM price-to-earnings ratio of 14.78x versus a FactSet Peer Group average of 17.13x. While this valuation gap has narrowed in recent months and may not be entirely attributable to regulatory headwinds, investor concerns persist over Connecticut’s evolving regulatory landscape.
Arguably the clearest test for investor confidence in Connecticut's utilities is the rate case Eversource filed on July 14th (Docket 26-05-10) for its subsidiary, and Connecticut's largest electric utility, Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P). The application identified a revenue deficiency of approximately $451MM when excluding cumulative storm costs, or $727MM when including them. While a sizeable figure, this represents only a portion of Eversource’s total financial exposure at stake. In a 2025 letter addressed to state officials obtained by Inside Investigator, Eversource had warned that the prospective CL&P filing could become a $3B rate proceeding, including an estimated base revenue deficiency of $400MM or more, deferred storm costs of at least $1.2B, a five-year reliability and resiliency plan of around $400MM, and consideration of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) costs totaling $1.2B.
In the period between that letter and the July 14th filing, several of these components have developed further. The storm cost recovery portion was addressed when Governor Ned Lamont signed Public Act 25-173 into law, which allows for securitization of certain related costs. Docket 25-12-13 was opened in December 2025 specifically to address deferred storm costs from 2018–2023, and a Final Decision was issued on July 29th.
The decision found that CL&P prudently incurred $861.48MM in catastrophic storm costs, approximately $118.4MM below the company’s requested storm and prestaging cost balance, excluding carrying charges. This results in a net ratepayer impact of $667.93MM after applying various offsets and credits (storm reserve accrual, mutual aid credit, and RAM CTA credit). PURA denied $396.7MM in retrospective carrying charges in their entirety while authorizing prospective carrying charges at the company’s 7.09% pre-tax WACC from the date of the decision forward. PURA will now determine whether securitization of up to $767.9MM in approved storm costs is in the best interest of ratepayers in a separate proceeding, Docket 26-04-04. Prospective carrying charges are not eligible for securitization under Public Act 25-173 but may be sought for recovery in CL&P’s rate case, which will also address post-2023 storm costs and a series of operational-improvement directives issued in the Final Decision.
On AMI, PURA issued a Final Decision on July 1st in Docket 17-10-46RE04, rescinding a previously established AMI cost-recovery decision in its entirety. PURA cited three changed circumstances justifying rescission: the company's decision to delay AMI implementation, the company's impending distribution rate proceeding, and the passage of Public Act 25-173 that permits securitization of AMI costs. Consistent with that decision, CL&P’s rate case filing includes an AMI accelerated deployment plan with an associated cost recovery framework, consolidating all costs for evaluation together in context and totality.
2026 stands out as a pivotal year for the Connecticut utility sector and its investors. The recent overhaul of PURA’s leadership and the recalibration of regulatory priorities appear to signal the most contentious phase of Connecticut’s regulatory environment may be over, especially as the Commission works to restore procedural balance and address longstanding issues in rate recovery and capital investment. With the CL&P rate case now filed, and the Docket 25-12-13 Final Decision now issued, key milestones in CL&P’s rate case in Docket 26-05-10 and securitization proceeding in Docket 26-04-04 will serve as critical indicators of whether the regulatory environment in the state has truly turned a corner.
This blog post is for informational purposes only. The information contained in this blog post is not legal, tax, or investment advice. FactSet does not endorse or recommend any investments and assumes no liability for any consequence relating directly or indirectly to any action or inaction taken based on the information contained in this article.