Eversource asks PURA for ‘enabling order’ and cost‑recovery tools to speed smart‑meter rollout

Eversource representatives told the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on Feb. 18 that the company needs regulatory clarification and a tailored cost‑recovery mechanism to proceed with a planned statewide Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) rollout on an accelerated, roughly five‑year schedule.

Company witnesses and counsel described three principal obstacles they said are embedded in PURA’s Dec. 4, 2024 decision: language that could prevent recovery of much of the forecast incremental O&M during deployment, an interpretation of prudence that ties recovery to post‑implementation outcomes, and an implementation schedule the company says is no longer realistic. Vincent Pace, Eversource counsel, and Doug Horton, the company’s senior vice president for regulatory and strategic financial planning, said the combination creates unacceptable commercial and regulatory uncertainty for an investment the company repeatedly described as “on the order of magnitude” of $1 billion.

Eversource proposed several remedies. Witnesses asked PURA to issue an “enabling order” that would (1) permit deferral accounting for one‑time, deployment‑period O&M (with a later securitization option to smooth customer impacts), (2) confirm that cost recovery will be evaluated under a traditional prudence/used‑and‑useful standard rather than tied to customer behavioral outcomes that the utility cannot control, and (3) update the implementation timeline to reflect current conditions. Doug Horton said the company would file an updated benefit‑cost analysis (BCA) by June 1 and a draft implementation plan in August, with a proposed January 2027 kickoff if regulatory hurdles are resolved.

Company witnesses framed the request as a risk‑management and continuity issue: Eversource is deploying the same AMI technology in Massachusetts, where it has installed roughly 140,000 meters (about 10% of a 1.5 million‑meter program) and is leveraging vendor relationships and project teams. The utility said using common contracts and continuity of its Massachusetts project management organization would reduce cost and schedule risk.

PURA commissioners repeatedly pressed the company for specifics about who benefits and when. Staff and counsel asked the company to provide updated and supporting numbers — including avoided truck‑roll costs and the Massachusetts deployment plan — as late exhibits; Eversource agreed to submit truck‑roll cost breakdowns and the Massachusetts plan on a near‑term schedule. The company declined to give a definitive payback number during the hearing, saying a refreshed BCA would be necessary to support such calculations.

Eversource acknowledged that AMI costs would appear in the local delivery (distribution) portion of customers’ bills and that the delivery portion would rise during the deployment period. Horton said many benefits (for example, supply‑side savings from customers shifting to time‑varying rates) would accrue outside distribution charges, which complicates direct comparisons of cost and benefit on the delivery line alone.

The hearing record shows the company pressing for a regulatory mechanism that allows timely recovery – whether by a tracker, securitization of certain one‑time costs, a multiyear rate plan, or a combination — coupled with transparency and prudency review. Commissioners and intervenors signaled they would expect more precise BCA and deployment details before deciding whether to approve the requested constructs; PURA set briefs due March 6 and ordered the company to file several late exhibits by Feb. 23.

The docket will now proceed on a written‑briefing schedule; PURA staff said it will publish dates for a proposed final decision and potential oral argument after reviewing the filings.