Bill to tighten review of transmission 'asset condition' projects aims to curb unchecked costs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
SB 518 would create criteria for the Site Evaluation Committee to vet transmission asset‑replacement projects, requiring proof of underlying deterioration and consideration of lower‑cost alternatives. Supporters cite a lack of oversight on asset‑condition projects; industry warns added review could delay critical work and raise costs.
Senator Kevin Avard presented SB 518 to establish a certification and review process for qualified transmission asset replacement projects. Dan Phelan of the New Hampshire Department of Energy described ‘‘asset condition’’ work — widespread replacement and upgrades of poles and other transmission equipment — and argued there has been limited oversight of such projects, resulting in rapid cost growth regionally.
The bill would require proposers to demonstrate an underlying condition that negatively affects reliable service, to show no lower‑cost alternative can provide similar service and to provide scope justification to the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC). DOE testimony cited regional planning figures showing billions of dollars in asset condition spending and argued more state review of siting and alternatives is needed.
Industry witnesses cautioned that adding SEC review steps could slow projects and raise costs, which in some cases are tied to wildfire mitigation and public safety work. They pointed to ongoing FERC filings and appeals, and warned the legislative changes could duplicate federal or ISO planning oversight and delay construction. Unions representing line workers said delays could damage jobs and local project momentum.
Committee members asked whether the bill would change the SEC’s 180‑day statutory review timeline; sponsors said the 180‑day schedule would remain. The hearing closed for recess with requests for further drafting and potential fee/recovery provisions to pay for SEC review costs.