Gas companies claim PURA disclosure on op-ed missing documents. Plaintiffs raise prospect of deposing Needleman, Steinberg and Govert.

The Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation (CNG) and The Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) alleged in a Friday court filing that the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission (PURA) failed to provide documents included in an April 16th order. As a result, Plaintiffs CNG and SCG are seeking an order requiring PURA to “search for, collect, and produce, under supervision of counsel” text messages, emails and attachments “in a format that includes all relevant metadata and document history.”

The 24-page motion addresses the continuing mystery of who wrote a December 19th opinion piece that appeared in the CT Mirror under the names of State Senator Norm Needleman and State Representative Jonathan Steinberg, co-chairs of the legislature’s energy committee. The publication of the op-ed, which excoriated utilities, credit ratings agencies, and the press, has come to play a central role in an appeal of CNG and SCG rate decisions by PURA. The gas companies allege that if PURA chair Marissa Gillett had a hand in the op-ed, she cannot act as a fair-minded finder of facts in the utility cases.

PURA’s response to an April 16th Superior Court decision requiring PURA to produce all documents in its possession related to the incendiary op-ed was, according to the Plaintiffs, inadequate and lacking documents referred to in emails and text messages to or from Gillett. A curious omission by PURA are the December 15th text messages between Gillett and Steinberg that refer to the PURA chief having finished an op-ed draft and waiting for her chief of staff Theresa Govert and others in the agency to review it. Rather than provide those text messages from Gillett’s phone, the agency gave the Plaintiffs a screenshot of the text messages published in a Hartford Courant story. The messages were obtained by Courant reporter Ed Mahony from the House Democrats.

Where, the Plaintiffs wonder, are the texts from Gillett’s side of the exchanges? Could Gillett, who at the same time she told Steinberg she had finished the elusive draft, have deleted her text messages? Gillett did make a reference in what we know of that exchange with Steinberg made to using a private email account to avoid being “FOI’d.” But that is not how the act works. It’s the document that is subject to the open-records law, no matter the means of creating of transmitting it.

Claiming to be acting in the interest of transparency, PURA disclosed to the Plaintiffs seven emails purporting to show that the agency was in various stages of pondering a variety of documents for publication when Gillett said she had completed the op-ed in December. The dates, according to the Plaintiffs’ motion, “simply do not line up.” The emails make reference to Word document attachments but do not include any. One of those messages refers to a December lunch meeting with Needleman “to Discuss Energy Policy.” The meeting was to take place at the Essex Yacht Club.

PURA did not produce what, if Gillett is telling the truth that she had no role in the polemic published in the CT Mirror, would put this matter to rest: the draft she completed and referred to in her text message to Steinberg.

An explosive footnote near the conclusion of the Plaintiffs’ motion raises the stakes for trust in government. Without documents from Gillett–documents that once were in her possession–“it may be necessary for the Court to consider ordering additional third-party discovery or depositions of Rep. Steinberg, Sen. Needleman and Theresa Govert.” The Plaintiffs point out that “in public comment to date, Rep. Steinberg has said in a very carefully worded statement, only that ‘Senator Needleman and I take full responsibility for the editorial” –which is rather different than an acknowledgement of authorship.”

Or the two legislators could voluntarily be more forthcoming in the documents they sent and received.

The litigation continues.

Published May 19, 2025.