State lawmakers, regulators and industry representatives met Feb. 6 before the Connecticut General Assembly's Energy and Technology Committee to review grid-enhancing technologies and advanced transmission conductors as near-term options to increase electric capacity, improve efficiency and limit ratepayer costs.

Representative Jonathan Steinberg, House chair of the Energy and Technology Committee, opened the forum saying it was an opportunity “for all of us to learn about how we can further enhance the grid that we have and the grid that we need to have going forward.” The panel included state officials, utility and grid vendors who described specific technologies, pilot results and federal funding avenues.

The discussion centered on why GETs matter now: Connecticut and neighboring New England states expect rising electricity demand tied to electrification, data centers and manufacturing. Katie Dykes, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said ATTs (advanced transmission technologies) “can cost effectively increase the capacity and the efficiency and the reliability and the safety of power lines, faster than traditional infrastructure and at a lower cost, or with higher net benefits.” She highlighted three technology classes discussed during the hearing: dynamic line ratings, advanced power-flow control and topology optimization.

Panelists and regulators said GETs and advanced conductors can be deployed faster than building new lines and can reduce line losses. Theodore Paradise, chief policy and grid strategy officer for CTC Global, said carbon‑composite–core conductors can reduce line losses by roughly 30–40 percent and “double capacity in an existing right of way,” allowing deployment in 12–24 months compared with much longer lead times for new transmission. Dan Berkowitz of Bekaert and other industry speakers cited U.S. case studies and Department of Energy reports showing broad utility interest and prior deployments.

Regulatory and consumer advocates pressed for transparency and oversight to protect ratepayers. Claire Coleman, head of the Office of Consumer Counsel, noted that distribution and transmission together represent about 40 percent of typical Eversource customer bills and about 47 percent for United Illuminating customers. She urged robust benefit‑cost analysis and data transparency to ensure capital investments are the least‑cost option for customers.

Dave Arconti, interim commissioner at the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), summarized recent state dockets that shape the regulatory environment: docket 220605 authorized certain battery storage builds to support reliability and resiliency, and docket 240808 established a non‑wires solutions process that will kick off in 2025. Panelists said those and other proceedings — and a pending performance‑based regulation (PBR) docket at PURA — are vehicles to evaluate GETs against traditional capital projects.

Speakers stressed the importance of cost allocation and federal funds for limiting rate impacts. Commissioner Dykes referenced a multi‑state agreement that secured Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval for a tariff cost‑allocation formula and asked ISO New England to run a public policy transmission RFP to competitively solicit projects. She said an interregional expansion of roughly 1,000 megawatts could produce about $137,000,000 in annual cost savings in one DOE lab study, and that the six‑state agreement and federal funding (including roughly $389,000,000 cited for certain projects) are tools to avoid Connecticut bearing an outsized share of costs.

Utility representatives said GETs are already part of planning and that not every technology fits every need. Jake Lucas and DeGoto Chatterjee of Eversource emphasized that advanced technologies are evaluated within existing transmission and distribution planning, and cautioned that some technologies may reduce seasonal line ratings in specific conditions — a reference to an ambient‑adjusted line rating requirement they said can lower capacity in warmer months. Avangrid representatives asked for regulatory clarity and assurance of cost recovery before pursuing some investments.

Industry speakers described pilot and deployed projects: Avangrid and other firms reported dynamic line ratings trials that produced average rating increases of roughly 15–20 percent for 80–90 percent of operating hours on the lines studied; Eversource highlighted a storage‑led non‑wires project in Provincetown (a 25‑megawatt, 38‑megawatt‑hour battery microgrid) that avoided a more expensive distribution/transmission solution and can island thousands of customers; Bekaert and CTC Global cited reconductoring projects and live‑line upgrades that delivered rapid capacity gains and measurable energy savings in other regions.

Speakers also flagged supply‑chain constraints and rising component costs as drivers of increased transmission project costs and urged leveraging federal grants and multistate coordination to lower those burdens. Committee members asked how to communicate tradeoffs to ratepayers; panelists recommended public dashboards, robust benefit‑cost analysis, performance metrics in the PBR docket and aggressive pursuit of federal and multistate funding to reduce direct rate impacts.

The session concluded with lawmakers encouraging continued meetings and deeper technical briefings, including requests that utilities and vendors provide project‑level data and that regulators follow up on municipal utility comparisons and rates. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken at the hearing; the panel was convened as an informational forum to inform the 2025 legislative session.

Ending: Committee leaders said the briefing was an initial step in a broader conversation during the session and invited stakeholders to follow up with data and pilot results to help shape cost‑allocation, oversight and any legislation that may be proposed later in 2025.