I-Team: CT Watchdog calls for ethics investigation into communication between PURA Commissioner/Utility Executive

HARTFORD, Conn. (WFSB) - A state watchdog is demanding an ethics investigation into the regulators who decide what you pay for power. It comes after the I-Team uncovered frequent communications between a state regulator and a utility executive while deciding on rate hikes.

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group wants to know why then PURA Commissioner Michael Caron and Avangrid Executive Ted Novicki spoke so often. Avangrid owns United Illuminating.

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group is a non-profit and lobbying organization that covers issues from healthcare to consumer protection to electricity, anything affecting taxpayers. They want the State Office of Ethics to investigate.

“It was an incredibly important story because these are the stories that need to be told,” says Helen Humphreys, who is a Senior Organizer and Communications Coordinator for CCAG.

The communication between Caron and Novicki was happening during the month and a half period during a time when PURA was deciding a rate case.

PURA had released a draft decision, then PURA chairwoman Marissa Gillett resigned. The final decision awarded UI $37 million dollars more than what was suggested in the draft.

The decision came from just Commissioners Michael Caron and David Arconti on October 28th. Arconti is a former Avangrid lobbyist.

Because of this decision, the average customer’s bill rose between $10 to 13 a month starting in November 2025 through October 2026.

Records show 10 phone calls between Caron’s office lines and Novicki, with an additional nine phone calls between their cell phones in October.

PURA’s rules don’t prohibit commissioners and regulators from talking; they just can’t discuss a contested case. All utility rate cases are considered contested.

To be clear, the I-Team does not know what Caron and Novicki discussed.

“We’re asking for the State of Connecticut to investigate not only the communications between Ted Novicki and Michael Caron, but we’re also asking for PURA to reconsider the decision around Avangrid, as we’re not sure how these decisions were made since they were done in the dark.

Caron and Novicki both declined to go on camera for our original investigation, but both said they did nothing wrong.

In response to the calls for an Ethics investigation, Caron said “My previous statement continues to be valid. I still have done nothing wrong or improper and I continue to abide by the state’s ethics laws as I always have.” (Caron’s previous statement is below).

An Avangrid spokesperson said from the beginning, there was no improper communication, adding the conversations followed PURA Chairwoman Marissa Gillett’s decision to step down earlier that month. (Previous full Avangrid statement is below).

In a new statement, an Avangrid spokesperson said that “a request for an investigation is not evidence of wrongdoing”, and that “the communications at issue were routine in nature.” (The full new Avangrid statement is below).

The spokesperson added there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Humphreys tells the I-Team; the CT Citizen Action Group believes there are reforms both the state legislature and PURA can make, to make the process more transparent for ratepayers.

They think the state needs to do more rigorous and regular review the utilities’ monopoly status. This would mandate a process for utilities to reapply to maintain their monopoly status.

“And so every 15 years, they should come to the state and be reviewed of whether or not they can continue to be the utility monopoly. And municipalities can decide whether or not they want to find someone else to deliver their electricity,” says Humphreys.

They also want the Office of Consumer Counsel, an independent state agency that advocates for ratepayers, to be granted subpoena power.

They want PURA to re-do their website to be more user friendly and accessible as well.

“Then we also think that all communications between PURA regulators and utility executives, lobbyists need to be out in the open. We shouldn’t have to file freedom of information act requests or have a lawyer come in and find out how these decisions are made,” says Humphreys.

Humphreys says the state needs to force the utilities to be more transparent, so customers aren’t left in the dark.

Caron left PURA at the end of December after 13 years as commissioner. Four months later he registered as a lobbyist for two energy companies in Connecticut, though Avangrid is not one of them.

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group wants to end the revolving door as they call it, asking for legislation that forbids legislators, executive staff from going to work for the utilities and PURA.

Caron said he has no plan to solicit any clients that would have business before PURA in the future, and there is a rule that said he cannot lobby anyone at PURA for at least one year.

STATEMENTS:

PURA/OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL:

In a statement, the Office of Consumer Counsel said, “Consumers deserve transparency in the decisions determining what they pay for essential utility services, which includes full compliance with ex parte communication restrictions. The Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) will continue to work with all stakeholders engaged in PURA proceedings to help ensure the decision-making process is open, accountable and in the best interests of Connecticut’s ratepayers.”

In a statement PURA said, “PURA’s budget and regulations are subject to legislative oversight, and PURA is open to any and all legislative initiatives that can improve our systems and processes for the benefit of utility customers.

Following Commission Caron’s departure in December 2025, PURA entertained a Motion to Reconsider the October 28^th UI Rate Case decision that was issued by Commissioners Caron and Arconti.

PURA held subsequent hearings and allowed new briefing by parties and intervenors in January and February of 2026.

On March 5^th, a panel of three commissioners (Arconti, Beecher and Cheeseman) issued a new final decision in the UI rate case.

Regarding the March 3, 2026 final decision in Docket No. 24-10-04, this was a reconsideration of the October 28, 2025, decision. The reconsidered March 3, 2026, decision was rendered by Vice Chairman Arconti, Commissioner Beecher, and Commissioner Cheeseman, and superseded the October 28, 2025, by Vice Chairman Arconti and Commissioner Caron. The rationale for the difference in authorized revenue between the two decisions is discussed in detail within the March 3, 2026, decision itself.

OCC’s statement on the decision issued on March 5^th can be found here.

All filings in the UI Rate Case docket can be found here.

AVANGRID:

In an email, sent today by Avangrid spokesperson Jonathan Breed, he said, “Over the course of multiple conversations, we have provided extensive context regarding the communications in question, explained the role of utility regulatory affairs professionals, and outlined the legal standard governing ex parte communications in Connecticut. Despite that, your reporting continues to be driven by allegations rather than evidence, which is incredibly disappointing to see from a news organization like WFSB.

As we explained in our statement provided to you, the communications at issue were routine in nature and do not constitute improper ex parte communications under Connecticut law. Beyond our statement, we have not seen, nor have you provided evidence suggesting otherwise. That is a fact that must be prominently included in any fair reporting.

We are particularly concerned with your decision to elevate calls for investigations by a third-party organization as though they somehow validate the underlying allegations. A request for an investigation is not evidence of wrongdoing. Responsible reporting requires a clear distinction between advocacy, speculation, and established fact.

Before airing serious allegations that can affect the reputations of our employees and our company, you as news organization have an obligation to independently evaluate the evidence, scrutinize the credibility and motivations of their sources, and present viewers with the full context. Simply amplifying claims from one source, without subjecting them to the same scrutiny applied to other sources, risks creating a narrative that is driven by accusation rather than facts. The public deserves reporting that does not start with a conclusion and then works backward.

We expressed similar concerns with prior coverage, which relied heavily on claims from organizations with clear policy agendas while giving substantially less weight to facts and context that contradicted the narrative being advanced.

At this point, what remains absent from your narrative is evidence. After months of review, public records requests, and scrutiny, neither you nor the organizations promoting this narrative have produced evidence of improper conduct.

Any fair assessment of the facts should recognize that the communications and records reviewed do not support allegations of wrongdoing or improper conduct. Responsible journalism requires not only scrutinizing the underlying records, but also evaluating the credibility, motivations, and evidence offered by those advancing the accusations."

Through an email, a spokesperson for Avangrid originally said in June, “they affirmatively deny improper communication,” adding, “Following the announced resignation of former PURA Chair Marissa Gillette last September, the Authority entered a period marked by significant uncertainty, controversy, and a lack of clear direction. Chair Gillette’s departure came after a prolonged period of public and political conflict, including questions from lawmakers about her leadership and transparency, accusations of lying under oath, and growing concerns about how the agency was operating. Her sudden resignation raised broader questions about governance at the agency, highlighted concerns about internal decision-making processes, including disputes over the role of commissioners and access to staff, contributing to an environment that many viewed as unstable and unclear. In the wake of that departure, PURA was left in a state where there was limited clarity about how the agency would function on a day-to-day basis. A regulator that is not functioning creates challenges for the companies it oversees, and ultimately for the customers those companies serve. Clarity was sought by members of our team during this period of instability regarding PURA’s regulatory and decision-making processes and procedures going forward. As a regulated utility, we rely on a stable, predictable, and transparent regulatory framework to plan long-term investments, maintain infrastructure, and provide reliable service. When that framework becomes inconsistent or uncertain, it undermines confidence in the process and makes it more difficult to operate in a way that best serves customers. Our focus has always been on ensuring that regulatory decisions are grounded in fairness, transparency, and consistency. These principles are essential to maintaining trust in the process, which is why last November, we filed a request with PURA for reconsideration of the UI rate case.”

MICHAEL CARON:

Caron’s full statement from this week is above.

This is Caron’s previous full statement from our original investigation:

“I have not and would not participate in ex parte’ with anyone. Aside from not being allowed it would not be fair to other docket participants - Ex parte rules prohibit PURA decision-making staff or commissioners from discussing a contested case with parties, intervenors, or other participants. The same rules apply to the Office of Consumer Counsel and Office of the Attorney General unless they are exploring or conducting settlement discussions.

To clarify further there is no prohibition on communications between participants in uncontested cases, nor are there rules barring communications between a utility’s regulatory affairs staff and PURA staff and commissioners regarding other various administrative issues or announcements, such as an upcoming press release, a gas outage or company preparations for an incoming storm.

In my more than 30 years as a public servant in elected and appointed office, I have acted with integrity, fairness, and consistently with regards to my responsibilities and obligations. "