Avangrid, the U.S. subsidiary of Spanish energy company Iberdrola, has been a party to a string of lawsuits over the past several years, and the Avangrid lawsuits worth tracking fall into a handful of distinct fights: shareholder challenges to the 2024 take-private deal, an antitrust case Avangrid brought against NextEra, regulatory litigation in Connecticut and Maine, a defamation suit that backfired in New Mexico, and a pending federal challenge to its offshore wind projects. Most have been resolved. A few are still live going into 2026.
Shareholder Challenges to the Iberdrola Buyout
In May 2024, Iberdrola announced it would buy the roughly 18.4% of Avangrid shares it did not already own for $35.75 per share, a deal valued at about $2.5 billion.1Renewable Energy World. Done Deal: Iberdrola Completes Merger With Avangrid, Takes It Private Shareholders approved the buyout on September 26, 2024, the transaction closed on December 23, 2024, and Avangrid was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.2Iberdrola. Iberdrola Completes Merger With Avangrid
Two shareholder suits followed. Both were dismissed on the same day, December 22, 2025, and no settlement was paid in either.
Federal Securities Class Action
In January 2025, attorney Juan Monteverde filed a securities class action in the Southern District of New York for former shareholder Marc Goldschein. The complaint alleged the August and September 2024 proxy statements concealed the “longstanding and significant ties” between board member and former Maine Governor John Baldacci and Iberdrola, and misrepresented the “Unaffiliated Committee” that negotiated the buyout as independent.3PR Newswire. Monteverde & Associates PC Has Filed a Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Former Shareholders of Avangrid
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Avangrid’s motion to dismiss. The court found investors failed to plausibly allege Baldacci had a significant relationship with Iberdrola during his time as governor, at his law firm, or as vice chairman of Avangrid’s board, and concluded that any further disclosures would not have been material.4Bloomberg Law. Avangrid Beats Investors’ Suit Over Conflict in Iberdrola Buyout Leave to amend was denied as futile, and judgment for defendants was entered on December 29, 2025.5CourtListener. Goldschein v. Avangrid, Inc.
New York State Court Action
A separate group of plaintiffs sued in New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division, in December 2024, arguing the merger should be reviewed under the heightened “entire fairness” standard rather than the business judgment rule. They pointed to committee chairman Robert Duffy’s past work with an Avangrid subsidiary and friendship with Iberdrola’s chairman, Baldacci’s political connections, director Patricia Jacobs’s business ties, alleged conflicts at the committee’s financial advisor Moelis & Company, and the fact that Qatar Investment Authority held stakes in both Avangrid and Iberdrola.6New York Courts. In Re Avangrid, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Justice Andrew Borrok dismissed the case, finding the transaction satisfied all six procedural safeguards under the MFW framework for business judgment deference. The court noted the minority vote passed even without counting Qatar Investment Authority’s shares.6New York Courts. In Re Avangrid, Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Antitrust Case Against NextEra
In November 2024, Avangrid sued NextEra in federal court in Springfield, Massachusetts, alleging a years-long campaign to sabotage the New England Clean Energy Connect, a $1.65 billion, 145-mile transmission line built to carry Canadian hydropower into New England.7Yahoo Finance. Avangrid Sues NextEra Claiming Sabotaged The complaint described three lines of attack:
- At least ten allegedly baseless permit challenges before the Maine PUC, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, several of which appellate bodies had described in terms like “absurd” and “unrealistic.”8State Power Project. Avangrid v. NextEra Complaint
- “Dark money” and shell-company funding of two Maine voter referenda aimed at blocking the project. Both referenda were ultimately found unconstitutional by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and in November 2023 two NextEra-backed political organizations settled with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, admitting they had failed to disclose NextEra as the funding source.8State Power Project. Avangrid v. NextEra Complaint
- Refusal to upgrade an aging circuit breaker at NextEra’s Seabrook Station nuclear plant, blocking the NECEC connection to the grid. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had called that resistance “blatantly anticompetitive” and eventually forced the upgrade.7Yahoo Finance. Avangrid Sues NextEra Claiming Sabotaged
U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni dismissed the case in September 2025, ruling that Avangrid had not shown how NextEra’s conduct actually limited competition in New England’s electricity markets.9Law360. NextEra Dodges Antitrust Claims in $1B Power Line Fight The available record does not show whether Avangrid appealed. The NECEC line itself began commercial operations on January 16, 2026, delivering 1,200 MW of hydropower to ISO-New England.10Iberdrola. NECEC Project
Connecticut Regulatory Litigation
Avangrid’s Connecticut subsidiaries have been in an unusually bitter fight with the state’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. Much of the conflict centered on former PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, who resigned in late September 2025.
Gas Rate Case Remand
Southern Connecticut Gas and Connecticut Natural Gas appealed a PURA decision that cut their revenues by $35 million. On November 19, 2025, New Britain Superior Court Judge Matthew Budzik ordered PURA to restart the rate case from scratch, finding that “procedural errors and irregularities” had “so permeated the proceedings, evidence and record below as to undermine the fundamental fairness of the proceedings.”11Inside Investigator. PURA’s Concession That It Violated Law Could Mean More Legal Trouble The court found evidence that PURA personnel had concealed an auto-delete function on Gillett’s phone that destroyed text messages Avangrid had requested in discovery, and referred PURA General Counsel Scott Muska and Assistant Attorney General Seth Hollander to the Statewide Grievance Committee.12CT Mirror. PURA Marissa Gillett Rate Case Avangrid Remand As of mid-2026, the grievance committee has not publicly acted, and new hearings before the reconstituted PURA board have not concluded.
Joint Suit With Eversource Over PURA Procedures
In January 2025, Eversource and Avangrid sued PURA in Hartford Superior Court, alleging the agency had violated state law for years by allowing Gillett to unilaterally appoint herself presiding officer in hundreds of utility proceedings and issue rulings without full commission review.13Hartford Courant. Eversource, Avangrid Sue PURA Claiming CT Utility Regulators Violated Law for Years After Gillett’s resignation, PURA agreed to procedural reforms, including panel rulings on substantive motions and recorded votes identifying the presiding officer. Both sides filed a joint request to dismiss the case on May 27, 2026, awaiting approval from Judge Elizabeth Stewart.14CT Mirror. Eversource, UI Drop Lawsuit Against Connecticut Regulators
Ex Parte Contact Allegations
Avangrid has also faced scrutiny over its own communications with PURA. In August 2022, Avangrid CEO Pedro Azagra Blázquez held a video call with Gillett during which PURA’s general counsel alleged Azagra made “thinly veiled” threats linking adverse rate rulings to reduced Connecticut investment and offered to help Gillett with “opportunities for ‘international exposure.'” Avangrid described the meeting as a routine courtesy call.15CT Mirror. New Year, New Chapter in Long Fight Over CT’s Utility Regulator
In June 2026, reporting revealed frequent phone calls and text messages between PURA Commissioner Michael Caron and Avangrid’s Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs Ted Novicki during a contested United Illuminating rate case in fall 2025. Phone logs showed at least ten office-line calls and nine personal cell calls in October 2025 alone. PURA rules prohibit commissioners from discussing contested cases with participants. The final decision, issued by Caron and Commissioner David Arconti, awarded United Illuminating $37 million more than the draft recommendation. The Energy and Policy Institute called for an investigation; as of mid-2026, no formal enforcement action has been initiated, and both Caron and Avangrid denied the communications were improper.16WFSB. Watchdog Calls for Investigation After PURA Commissioner Utility Communications Revealed in Rate Case
Defamation Suit Against Security Limits
In December 2021, Avangrid sued Security Limits, Inc. and its CEO Paulo Silva in New Mexico state court for defamation, tortious interference, and extortion. Avangrid alleged Silva, a former subcontractor, had threatened to give damaging information to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission during its review of Avangrid’s proposed $8.3 billion merger with PNM Resources unless he received a new contract.17Avangrid. Avangrid Files Defamation and Tortious Interference Lawsuit Against Security Limits
Silva had separately filed a $110 million federal suit in the Southern District of New York accusing Avangrid and Iberdrola of bid-rigging and racketeering, claiming executives steered contracts to Iberdrola-connected companies that bought unnecessary equipment at markups of 40% or more.18Searchlight New Mexico. Iberdrola, Avangrid Accused of Bid Rigging, Racketeering in Lawsuit Silva voluntarily dismissed that federal case in February 2022 without a settlement.19Spectrum News. Security Firm Drops Federal Lawsuit Against CMP Owner A Maine PUC investigation into the allegations (Docket 2021-00391) was later closed by commission order.20Maine PUC. Docket 2021-00391 Case Summary
Avangrid’s own suit was dismissed under New Mexico’s Anti-SLAPP statute and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects petitioning activity before government bodies. The trial court found Silva’s comments to the PRC were protected speech and not a sham, and awarded Security Limits $36,000 in attorney fees. On December 16, 2024, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, the denial of Avangrid’s motion to amend, and the fee award. The appellate court noted the PRC had actually cited an ongoing investigation into Iberdrola as a reason for denying the Avangrid-PNM merger.21FindLaw. Avangrid, Inc. v. Security Limits, Inc. and Paulo Silva
Offshore Wind Permit Challenge
On May 22, 2025, a coalition including ACK for Whales, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah, fishing associations, and environmental groups sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleging that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and other federal agencies violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act in approving Avangrid’s New England Wind 1 (791 MW) and New England Wind 2 (1 GW) projects.22Offshore Wind. Lawsuit Filed to Stop Avangrid’s New England Offshore Wind Projects
The federal government then sided with the challengers. On December 2, 2025, BOEM asked the court to remand the New England Wind 1 approval for reconsideration, stating the original Construction and Operations Plan approval “may have failed to account for all the impacts” of the project, including effects on commercial fishing, shipping, and national security.23Rhode Island Current. BOEM to Consider Revoking New England Wind 1 Approval BOEM cited its remand of the SouthCoast Wind project in November 2025 as precedent. Avangrid had until January 16, 2026, to object, and no ruling on the remand motion has been reported.24WBUR. New England Wind 1 and 2 BOEM COP Permit Revoked Massachusetts
Pattern of Regulatory Fines
Sitting behind the headline lawsuits is a steady record of regulatory penalties. As of mid-2021, Avangrid’s utilities had accumulated roughly $60 million in penalties and cost disallowances over five years, according to figures cited by a New Mexico hearing examiner reviewing the PNM merger; that examiner called Avangrid’s failure to disclose the multi-state penalties in its initial merger filing “troubling.”25Utility Dive. New Mexico Regulators Consider Avangrid PNM Merger Final Hurdle
The largest single fines have come in New York, where the Public Service Commission fined New York State Electric & Gas $11.4 million in 2024 and $9 million in 2020, and Rochester Gas and Electric $7.1 million in 2024. Connecticut’s United Illuminating was fined $2.1 million over its response to Tropical Storm Isaias in 2020. In Maine, Central Maine Power was fined $4 million in 2010 for service problems and $500,000 in 2020 for consumer protection violations.26Violation Tracker. Iberdrola Violation Tracker