Opinion: An independent transmission monitor could cut ratepayer costs
Energy affordability is in the spotlight, and the public is rightfully demanding answers.
A significant factor increasing bills is the expense of maintaining and upgrading the aging electric power grid. The cost of transmission —the long-distance lines that move electricity across the region from where it is generated to our homes and businesses—has more than doubled since 2005, from 10% to 24% of the average customer bill.
If we’re serious about protecting families and businesses from unnecessary energy costs, Connecticut and New England need an independent entity that scrutinizes transmission projects and ensures they are correctly sized and optimized for actual grid needs. Consumers should be paying for reliability and resilience, not excess infrastructure that pads shareholder profits.
Currently, transmission companies are pouring money into refurbishing and replacing old transmission infrastructure. The annual cost of these local projects, called Asset Condition Projects (ACPs), has skyrocketed regionally from $58 million in 2016 to $1.2 billion in 2024.
In Connecticut, there were 18 ACPs under construction as of October 2025, at an estimated cost of over $1 billion, with 12 more ACPs planned for the future. ACP projects now dwarf investments in other kinds of new transmission, and Connecticut and other New England electric customers are on the hook.
ACPs could strategically increase grid capacity through the use of new technologies and upgrades, but they most often replace existing equipment or make minimal upgrades, failing to optimize the system as a whole. Unoptimized ACPs are a missed opportunity to maximize cost efficiencies in transmission planning. In some cases, ACPs may be overbuilt, and in others a lack of anticipatory investments may prevent the grid from growing to accommodate future electrification or new generation (like renewable energy) in a least-cost manner – leading to unnecessary ratepayer costs.
Oversight of ACP spending has been practically non-existent. ACPs are reviewed by the regional grid operator’s (ISO-NE) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), but they are often submitted to the PAC as little as 90 days before construction is set to begin. That is far too little time to do meaningful review. And, states and stakeholders face a major informational disadvantage to rebut and refine transmission owners’ plans.