Committee hears bill asking AOT to seek FERC requirement that hydro owner help pay for canal bridges

Senators and witnesses on the Senate Finance Committee reviewed a newly introduced bill (S.113) directing the Agency of Transportation (AOT) to submit comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) during relicensing of the Bellows Falls hydroelectric project and to request terms that would require the project owner to contribute to the repair, maintenance or replacement of publicly owned bridges crossing the power canal.

Senator Harrison introduced the measure, describing the Bellows Falls canal as a manmade channel that diverts Connecticut River water to hydroelectric turbines and as the proximate reason multiple bridges exist. She said the canal "is only necessary for the hydro plant" and argued the owner of the hydro project should share responsibility for bridges that exist only because of the canal.

Damian Leonard of the Office of Legislative Counsel summarized the bill language: AOT would be required to file comments and proposed terms with FERC asking that the license include conditions obligating the dam owner/operator to plan for, contribute to and pay for repairs, maintenance, and if necessary replacement of publicly owned bridges that cross the power canal. The bill would also require AOT to submit supporting facts to the House and Senate committees on transportation.

Scott Pickup, municipal manager for the village of Bellows Falls and the town of Rockingham, and Gary Fox with regional planning experience described local infrastructure needs and redevelopment plans for the island created when the canal was built. Pickup said the depot/Depot Street bridge is a critical access point for an intermodal rail station and estimated the Depot Street bridge replacement at about $15 million; he said work around the intake adds substantial engineering complexity and cost.

Kathy Erfa, director of policy and advocacy at the Connecticut River Conservancy, testified that the canal lies within the hydro project's FERC exhibit and that relicensing is an appropriate place to request mitigation because the canal is part of the project area. She clarified that Great River Hydro is a subsidiary of Hydro‑Québec, that the company is not a rate‑regulated utility in the state's Public Utility Commission jurisdiction, and that the FERC relicensing process (a 40‑year license) is the state and town's primary opportunity to request financial mitigation tied to project impacts.

Patrick Murphy of the Agency of Transportation summarized AOT's position: the agency is opposed to being the entity directed to make such requests in this manner, saying staff believe another process or entity may be more appropriate. AOT agreed to provide a fuller response and agreed to come to a future committee hearing to discuss the resource impacts and process constraints.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed timing: relicensing has proceeded for many years and the FERC environmental review and comment timeline affects how and when parties can petition for conditions. Local officials stressed urgency because bridges are aging, some are weight‑restricted or closed to trucks, and planned redevelopment of the island depends on reliable access. The committee asked staff to schedule the hydro project owner and AOT for fuller testimony at the next meeting to allow the committee to evaluate consequences and possible legislation in light of FERC timing.

No formal vote was taken on the bill; the committee left the matter open and directed staff to invite AOT, the hydro owner (Great River Hydro/Hydro‑Québec subsidiary) and other affected parties for additional briefings before any further committee action.