New Hampshire Eversource project could increase CT customers’ bills

Connecticut’s Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman is joining other utility consumer advocates across New England urging Eversource Energy not to undertake a 49-mile transmission line upgrade in northern New Hampshire because they claim the project costs that would fall to ratepayers in other states are unreasonable.

The so-called X-178 project between Campton and Whitefield, New Hampshire is projected to cost as much as $360 million. Because of the way that transmission costs across the region are assessed, Connecticut’s share of that project could end up being $79.9 million. A breakdown of what that amount would add to an average individual customers’ electric bills was not immediately available Friday.

“Eversource has fallen well short of showing that this massive expenditure of ratepayer money to pursue these supposed improvements to the X-178 line will result in reasonable pool transmission costs,” Coleman and her fellow consumer advocates from across New England wrote in a letter sent to Eversource officials.

Coleman said in a statement separate from the letter that “scrutinizing transmission costs to help prevent the region’s ratepayers from paying for unnecessary or overly expensive projects is a high priority for the OCC,” which represents the interests of Connecticut utility ratepayers.

“I am pleased to be collaborating with our fellow New England consumer advocates to call attention to this concerning project,” Coleman said. “If Eversource moves forward with the X-178 project as it has proposed, working with my consumer advocate colleagues, we will do everything within our power to keep these costs out of New England ratepayers’ electric bills.”

That includes a possible challenge of the plan before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, she said. 

“Stated more technically, Eversource’s breakdown of structure ratings by segments shows that the company is fully rebuilding a segment in which only two percent of structures show asset condition concerns under Eversource’s grading system,” she said. “Additionally, the useful life of transmission structures can be up to 60 years; Eversource hasn’t adequately explained why it needs to replace all the structures here.”

The Eversource plan is even opposed by Donald Kreis, New Hampshire’s Consumer Advocate.

“Affordable electricity is one of our top public policy priorities in New Hampshire, so it is especially regrettable that Eversource is trying to make a project in our state the poster child for unconstrained spending on so-called asset condition transmission projects,” Kreis said. “I’m proud to join my counterparts from around the region in opposing efforts to gold-plate the transmission grid and send the bill to everyone in New England.”

Eversource officials said in an undated announcement announcing the scope of the project that recent inspections and engineering analysis revealed that many of the utility poles along that portion of the transmission line are in poor condition due to age, woodpecker and insect damage, as well as pole rot.

The company’s plan calls for replacing 570 wooden utility poles with weathering steel structures of a similar design that Eversource officials say will be able to support the weight of the new wires and can better withstand storms. In addition, the plan calls for replacing the wires on the utility poles as well as installing an internal communication fiber optic cable the entire length of the line to increase internal communication reliability and security.

Coleman said Eversource’s own research shows that only 41 utility poles poles need replacement.

Tricia Modifica, an Eversource spokeswoman, said company officials are currently reviewing the letter they received from the state consumer advocates group from around New England and will be following up  with them.

“This line rebuild is critical to enhancing reliability for customers as we make the transmission system more resilient to the increasingly extreme weather we’re experiencing in New England and addressing aging infrastructure that in many cases was originally built over 50 years ago,” Modifica said. “We continue to closely comply with the applicable regulatory review processes for consideration and oversight of these projects, and we’ve also engaged in extensive community outreach efforts, including with local municipalities, for this and other similar projects beyond the requirements of those established processes.”

Transmission costs are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and shared across all customers served by the regional transmission system through the region’s electric grid operator, ISO-New England, she said.

As the project moves forward, it will be subject to local, state and federal environmental and land use reviews and permitting processes and must receive all required permits before construction commences, according to Modifica.

“We recognize certain stakeholders take issue with the applicable regulatory review processes for these types of projects and we have been engaged in the conversations to consider potential adjustments to those processes,” she said. “Rebuilding the entire line at one time will limit impacts to our customers and the environment – resulting in a more efficient, cost-effective and responsible solution to repairing the system.  Our initial analysis of a pared-back alternative that would leave some component of the line in-place indicated that such an approach would ultimately result in higher costs over time as we would eventually need to go back and replace those other aging components.