As a Connecticut ratepayer, the ethical discussion around Sen. John Fonfara’s apparent unchecked appointment to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) should have people protesting in the street.

The newest federal administration has shown no opposition to appointing individuals with vested interests into powerful positions, ultimately benefiting their own profits over the citizens of this country. We cannot stand to let that precedent into Connecticut.

According to reports, one of PURA’s new appointments is slated to be filled by State Sen. John Fonfara, despite his history co-owning an electric firm with run-ins accruing measurable penalties from PURA. Wattafi (formerly Optik Energy) formally dissolved in 2023, but within his seven years in the electric industry, Fonfara’s firm managed to reach that $1 million mark in fees and late penalties against the agency.

Now, we are being forced to ask how a man whose company has accrued over $1 million in penalties from a state agency is now slated to serve as one of just five energy regulators under the commission.

The essence of PURA’s mission is accountability. But he refuses to take accountability himself,  dismissing Wattafi’s penalties  as “unjust” and “inappropriate?” If you are unable to see the justification in your own organization being held accountable, how are you to be trusted to justly hold others accountable for executing damaging penalties against state regulations?

To work for the agency that revoked the license of your defunct organization is disturbingly hypocritical, and leaves much room for concern about how Fonfara will perform in this role. How are Connecticut’s citizens to trust that his judgements are free of retaliatory bias?

Agencies in PURA’s sphere hold a privileged power over the state of our current climate crisis. To grant this privilege to someone who has no appreciation for its execution, minimizing the validity of its implementation upon oneself, is a foolish and damaging mistake.

Wattafi was penalized multiple years in a row for insufficiency in renewable energy measures (2018/2019).

In this position, Fonfara’s salary for up to six years could be paid solely by the penalties he owes to the agency, with commissioners making between $150,000 and $207,000 annually.

Fonfara’s appointment becomes even more curious once you begin to look at the broader proceedings of this term of PURA’s expansion.

The reappointment of Marissa Gillett, who has been chairman of PURA since 2019, notably rested on Fonfara’s swing vote this time around. In a rather convenient timeline, Fonfara’s vote in Gillett’s favor came after Gov. Ned Lamont’s agreement to nominate him for the position in question. Would Gillett even be returning to her position if Fonfara was not slated to be on the commissioner board?

The changes seen to PURA also include a removal of the commission from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). Instead, PURA will transition to a “quasi-public agency,” reducing governmental influence over its activity and removing it from its direct ties to the executive branch.

Fonfara would have been constitutionally disqualified from the position if PURA remained a regular state agency. Why are we taking shortcuts to avoid constitutional violations, and give Fonfara not only a leg up in his power down at the capitol, but a massively disproportionate uptick in his salary when compared to his peers in both branches of government?

To sit back and watch a man who could not abide by the regulations he is tasked with upholding now sit on a board to set statewide utility rates  is nothing short of diabolical.

However, it seems the common people aren’t the only ones picking up on the red flags of the situation. S.B. 1531 currently sits on the table, and among many initiatives to prevent joint monopolization over gas and electric authority within the state, the bill is seeking to increase requirements for PURA members in attempts to reduce conflicts of interest present in regulators serving on the commission.

Now, we must ask how these sought-after “substantial conflict recusal requirements” will impact the Fonfara situation. Ultimately, we must also question how specific the intent of this bill is. Is it possible that the state is as averse to Fonfara’s placement as a regulator as we are?

Mia Adduci is a Student at the Quinnipiac School of Law.