Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators, advocates press for more transparency and oversight of transmission asset-condition projects
Summary
Ratepayer advocates and state energy officials told lawmakers that transmission-related charges and the rise in asset-condition projects have increased costs but that there is insufficient transparency to judge project scope and necessity.
Lawmakers, state energy officials and ratepayer advocates told the Energy & Technology Committee that a growing share of customers'electric bills goes to transmission, and that the state lacks adequate transparency to judge whether some asset-condition projects are necessary or properly scoped.
Why it matters: Witnesses cited white-paper findings and regional experience showing transmission-related charges have risen and now represent roughly 10—to—11% of customer bills; some argued asset-condition projects can account for an outsized portion of that increase and said the current regulatory path may presume project prudence without sufficient state-level visibility.
Key concerns raised: - Asset-condition and local transmission projects are large, sometimes recurring costs passed to ratepayers; state advocates said FERC'driven filings presume prudence unless challenged and that the burden to challenge is high. - Witnesses recommended more transparent planning windows (for example, a five-year forecast like Maine's) so states and consumer advocates can see proposed scopes and alternatives earlier. - Several participants said a regional solution is preferable but has not materialized; DEEP and the Office of Consumer Counsel proposed state-level backstops to increase disclosure and let parties compare alternatives, including grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) and advanced conductors.
What advocates want: Claire Coleman, Connecticut's Consumer Counsel, and DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes urged the committee to consider legislation that would require transmission owners to publish five-year project plans and to bring more detailed scoping and alternatives into processes the siting council already runs for projects within Connecticut's jurisdiction.
Policy options discussed: Testimony referenced potential tools including: improved regional oversight through ISO New England and FERC, state-level reporting requirements for transmission owners, permitting earlier notice to the siting council or utilities to evaluate non-wires alternatives, and targeted funding for independent technical review (e.g., consultants) where state offices lack technical capacity.
Quotes: "This is an almost impossible burden for a challenger to meet," said a DEEP witness summarizing the transmission white paper's findings; Claire Coleman of the Office of Consumer Counsel said the problem calls for a multi-pronged strategy: "There is a place for enhanced oversight, regionally at ISO, through the participants committee as well as at FERC."
