Sponsor asks to add Office of Consumer Advocate role in site evaluation committee proceedings; utilities oppose, consumer advocate seeks limited inclusion

Senate Bill 237, introduced by Senator David Waters at the request of the Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA), would add language to the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) statute to ensure the OCA can participate in SEC dockets that raise material interests related to consumers and rates.

OCA Chief Donald Kreece testified in support and said his office requested the change after being excluded from an active SEC proceeding for a large transmission refurbishment project (the X178 project). Kreece said the OCA brings expertise on rate and cost impacts and that the office could support the SEC’s public‑interest analysis rather than merely oppose projects. "We are not obstructionists," Kreece told the committee. He said the OCA’s participation could have led to negotiated commitments on project benefits for ratepayers and pointed to the risk that, without OCA involvement, benefits could flow to out‑of‑state entities.

Eversource, represented by Griffin Roberge, opposed the bill. Roberge said the SEC already has a statutorily designated counsel for the public (appointed by the Attorney General) whose role is to represent public interests in SEC dockets, including environmental protection and public interest considerations. He argued the OCA’s intervention would be redundant, could lengthen proceedings and might create confusion about the SEC’s scope: "Authorizing the OCA to intervene in SEC proceedings could create confusion by suggesting that the legislature wants to expand the scope of the SEC's authority beyond siting to also take on rate‑making functions," Roberge said.

Deputy DOE Commissioner Chris Elms said the department was neutral but comfortable with the bill; he echoed concerns about the broader issue that many “asset‑condition” transmission projects receive limited regional or federal scrutiny even though estimated spending on such projects could be large. Elms urged broader review options for transmission spending but did not object to limited OCA inclusion.

Committee discussion addressed balancing roles: counsel for the public (appointed by the Attorney General) is an automatic party to SEC proceedings and traditionally performs a public‑interest function; OCA’s statutory mission focuses on ratepayer interests at the Public Utilities Commission. Senators and witnesses discussed possible middle‑ground approaches — for example, allowing the OCA to participate upon request and Attorney General appointment of counsel for those cases — to avoid duplication while preserving the OCA’s technical expertise for rate impact analysis.

The committee closed the hearing without a final vote on SB 237 in the supplied transcript. Members asked staff and stakeholders to explore options that would allow OCA participation in appropriate cases without creating redundant representation.