PURA loses
The title of the Hartford Courant story was worth a thousand
words: PURA agrees to settle suit. And the
subtitle -- “Authority [PURA] admits improper decision making by ex-chair
[Mellissa Gillett]” – could not have gone down the gullet of Governor Lamont,
an early Gillett enthusiast, easily. Crow is nearly always indigestible.
Lamont robustly defended his choice of Gillett as chairwoman
of PURA almost to its inglorious conclusion.
Gillett was appointed to her position with great fanfare.
Finally, PURA was to have at its chair a woman who did not flinch in a fight
with Connecticut’s energy distributors. Following an interview with David Roberts in 2024, Connecticut Commentary noted that
in the interview Gillett had forcefully summarized her regulatory philosophy:
“What is the point in constructing a regulatory regime that
never or rarely says ‘no’ to Big Business monopolies that can by their very
weight and political influence suppress any attempt to lower increases in their
price structure? What Connecticut needs, according to Gillett, is a
compensating institution, PURA, that can say no to such monopolistic practices.
PURA, when operating successfully, should ‘serve
in place of the free market’ [emphasis mine] that has been displaced by
monopolies using the governing authority to advance monopolistic interests.”
That philosophy soon collided with a rocky reality. According to the Hartford Courant, “Gillett
resigned under pressure nine months later, after it was revealed that she had
withheld evidence from a court in another case, and Gov. Ned Lamont since has
arranged what amounts to a fresh start in utility regulation. He replaced her
with former consumer advocate Thomas Wiehl and appointed new commissioners to
an authority that expanded from three to five members… The utilities complained
in the suit that by concealing the fact that she was delegating important
decisions herself, alone, Gillett was violating law establishing PURA’s
regulatory processes. Among other things, the utilities were being denied
appeal rights to which they would have been entitled had they known decisions
were being made by a single commissioner.”
The utilities were more than generous: “… by offering to
settle in return for an acknowledgment of Gillett’s [improper unilateral] decision-making,
[the utilities agreed] to the dismissal – without costs to any party [emphasis
mine] – of what was shaping up as protracted, costly and ultimately losing
litigation for the state.”
Looney Leaves
The Democrat dominated General Assembly recently bade a fond
farewell to Martin Looney, a political fixture of 33 years at the Capitol who served
his party loyally as a gatekeeper that prevented Republican rude attempts to introduce
legislation to various committees, all controlled by Democrats. Looney served
as President Pro Tempore of the Connecticut Senate since 2015. Previously, he
served 12 years as House Majority Leader and is well known for having
championed progressive legislation on gun control, tax credits for low-income
workers, drug cost caps, marijuana legalization, and death penalty repeal.
Looney was polite to Republicans and permitted them to talk
without obstruction. But then, Republicans would likely agree, talk is cheap
and political action in a legislature dominated by Democrats dear. Bills in the
General Assembly are usually fashioned by the Democrat caucus in proceedings
closed to both Republicans and the general public, and the committees, also
controlled by Democrats, are attached to those caucus rooms by inviolable
umbilical cords.
Distribution wise, legislative action in Connecticut is far
from democratic. The distribution of political forces in Connecticut has not
changed much over the years: There are in the state, according to the
Independent Voter Project (May 30, 2026), 35.05% registered Democrats, 21.06% registered
Republicans, and 43.89% Independents or Unaffiliateds. None of the Independents
are represented as such in the General Assembly.
Looney is now “out of the story,” as the Icelandic Sagas
claim when a central character has made his last appearance.
He likely will be replaced by yet another neo-progressive –
such is the prevailing tendency within New England northeast states, as witness
the seizure of New York City’s mayoral office by Zohran Mamdani , a
full-throated Marxist.
It seems only yesterday that former Mayor Ed Koch, advised
that a judge who had been mugged had never-the-less given a too lenient
sentence to a serial mugger, exploded, “Well, mug him again!” During his
presidential attempt, Barry Goldwater advised, “If you knock off New England
and California, you’ve got a pretty good country.”
Connecticut has in the past few decades adopted California
and neo-progressive New England as its political template. One may be sure that
Looney’s replacement will not stray far from what has become the
neo-progressive norm faithfully represented by the departing Looney.
Homeschooling Reform
Lamont, we are told, has signed into law a new homeschooling
reform law. The bill, we are told, has been somewhat “watered down” from a
Democrat caucus approved version. But anti-democratic caucus government in
Connecticut remains virulent, and bills watered down will in the future be watered
up – you can bet the farm on that.
Comments