New England states ask FERC to curb Eversource transmission reviews

New England states ask FERC to curb Eversource transmission reviews NESCOE told federal regulators that Eversource's X-178 project shows why New England's "asset condition" transmission reviews need reform; the utility says it broke no rule. The New England States Committee on Electricity told federal regulators on Monday (2026-06-01) that Eversource Energy's X-178 transmission project in New Hampshire "epitomizes" what is wrong with how the region vets utility grid spending.³ That matters because transmission costs land on ratepayers, and the asset condition pathway the committee is targeting lets transmission owners justify replacement work with lighter scrutiny than larger, newer projects face. NESCOE told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that New England "severely lacks" regulatory oversight of how these projects are reviewed.³ Eversource rejects the framing. The utility said X-178 has been "extensively reviewed" through ISO-NE's Planning Advisory Committee process, and that it followed the grid operator's rules in planning the work.³ It made the procedural point bluntly. Eversource argued the ratepayer advocates failed to identify a single rule it had broken, pointing to the Transmission Operating Agreement that governs what transmission owners are permitted to build. "The TOA is clear," the company said.³ The utility also pushed back on the substance of the complaint, denying it had sought to "goldplate" the project by inflating its scope or cost. Eversource said complainants "identify no evidence ... indicating that project scope, design, or timing was influenced by compensation."³ So the fight is narrow in form and broad in stakes. One project in New Hampshire becomes the test case for whether the asset condition review process in New England gets reopened. If FERC sides with the states, transmission owners across the region could face tighter justification requirements on replacement spending. If it sides with Eversource, the current process holds, and the PAC review the utility cites becomes the precedent others point to.³ The dispute lands as the wider transmission system is under strain. US regional grid operators have asked for an extension on a federal deadline to upgrade existing transmission infrastructure to lift capacity, according to DatacenterDynamics.¹ That deadline traces back to late 2021, when FERC directed all six major regional operators outside Texas to establish programs aimed at improving their networks.¹ The timing sharpens the cost question. More transmission has to be built or replaced to keep pace with rising load, and every dollar of that spending flows through to customers, which is precisely why the states want a clearer line between work that is genuinely needed and work that pads the asset base.^1,3 FERC's transmission docket already runs through siting, reliability and cost allocation, the machinery that will decide where this complaint goes.² For now the market signal is muted. The directional read on ISO-NE real-time power from the underlying signals is unclear, with no bullish or bearish weight attached, so this is a regulatory and cost-allocation story rather than a near-term price catalyst.³ The substance still carries weight for anyone modelling New England transmission tariffs. Asset condition projects are a recurring line in transmission owners' rate bases, and a successful reform push would change how those projects are scoped and approved across the region, not just on X-178.³ The contest also turns on burden of proof. Eversource's defence rests on having cleared the existing ISO-NE process and on the states' failure to name a violated rule; NESCOE's case rests on the argument that the process itself is too weak to catch overbuilding, which means the existing review carries little weight as evidence. Whether the asset condition review can serve as a real check is the question FERC now has to answer.³ What to watch is FERC's response to the complaint and whether the commission treats X-178 as a one-off or as grounds to revisit the asset condition framework. The precedent matters more than the single line of wire in New Hampshire.^3,2