Today’s order affirms that stakeholders are entitled to transmission investment information about asset condition projects through the transmission formula rate protocols (Protocols) that govern the New England Participating Transmission Owners’ (NETOs) transmission rates. I write separately today to broadly emphasize stakeholders’ fundamental right to transmission planning and investment information through existing formula rate protocols and to encourage transmission owners and planners to proactively share information on transmission projects and planning.
Beneficial transmission projects bring significant value to customers. As the nation experiences continued load growth, making the proper transmission investments can ensure reliability and help reduce the delivered cost of power to all customers. Investments in the U.S. power grid using the most advanced and efficient technologies are therefore paramount to serving new and existing customers, and transmission owners, transmission planners, and regulators have an obligation to upgrade our transmission system while ensuring that customers’ rates are just and reasonable. Recognizing the need for investment and the necessary spending on associated infrastructure, providing transparency and oversight to ensure the prudency of the selection and execution of transmission investments is of greater importance than ever before.
Much of the cost recovery of this investment occurs through formula rates on file with the Commission. The Commission views the formula rate protocols, which govern the discovery process, as a “safeguard” to ensure parties have the opportunity to examine the implementation of the formula rates and the prudency of costs.[1] The formula rate protocols include details on the process and timing for stakeholders to access information as well as potential challenges to the rates, including on the basis of prudency. Critically, this information can inform whether and if so, how customers might challenge the prudency of the transmission owner’s costs.
Today’s order affirms that “customers have a right under the Protocols to reasonable information to assess the prudency of actual expenditures.”[2] In this case, prudency review of actual expenditures necessarily includes review of both the decision-making processes that lead to asset condition projects that are planned and developed by the NETOs, and the execution of those investments in addition to how such costs flow into transmission formula rates. As such, we find that the Maine Office of the Public Advocate’s (Maine OPA) questions related to (a) how the transmission owners evaluated the asset condition project needs, (b) the procedures used to evaluate alternatives to the specific projects selected, (c) the information associated with the condition of the existing transmission assets replaced or upgraded, and (d) the procedures used to safeguard against premature project investments are all properly within the scope of the Protocols.[3] Ultimately, we find that the Maine OPA legitimately asked the NETOs to explain how they have arrived at their investment decisions regarding what transmission assets to upgrade, what alternatives they have considered, and how they have controlled the potential cost increases when making their transmission investments.
While today’s order addresses specific information requests under the NETOs’ Protocols, it should serve as a call to action for transmission owners across the country to provide greater transparency regarding their transmission investments. As transmission investments in asset condition, supplemental, and other local projects have increased in recent years, customers, state regulators, and stakeholders have rightly sought greater insight into both the planning and execution of transmission owners’ investment decisions. The Commission has explored this issue in a generic proceeding[4] and taken limited steps to address these concerns,[5] but it is clear more needs to be done to give customers the confidence that their dollars are being prudently invested in beneficial transmission.
Transmission owners nationwide should strive to proactively address this need for greater transparency, rather than resisting it or treating it as an undue burden. Both New England and California demonstrate how states and transmission owners can improve transparency through structured and standardized processes. Stakeholders in New England, including the NETOs, have developed a series of standardized documents that provide, among other things, information on the age and condition of existing assets on the NETO systems, a standardized presentation for asset condition projects, and a forward looking forecast of upcoming asset condition projects.[6] Similarly, in California, the California Public Utilities Commission has established a Transmission Project Review Process that includes releasing information publicly for review in a standardized format on a going forward basis.[7] These individual reports include detailed project information reported on a consistent basis across the investor-owned utilities.[8]
While these processes are an improvement compared to exclusive reliance on discovery under the Protocols, stakeholders nationwide would significantly benefit from standardized information on both current and forward-looking transmission projects. These data should provide sufficient information for customers and regulators to assess the purpose and cost of projects and have the basis to further examine the need or execution of specific projects, including: 1) project overview information, 2) physical descriptions of the project, and 3) estimated and actual cost information.
Project overview information provides context for stakeholders on proposed projects and answer fundamental questions about the need for a project. These data include the facility or project name, whether the project is replacement of existing equipment or the development of new infrastructure, primary and secondary drivers and, to the extent applicable, the condition of existing infrastructure or specifically reliability challenge being addressed.
Physical descriptions of investments are necessary to help stakeholders understand and benchmark expected costs, potential delays, and identify project characteristics that may lead to subsequent cost escalations. These data include voltage level, transmission mileage, brownfield or greenfield designation, whether the project is under or above ground, and required regulatory approvals and approval status.
Finally, information on estimated and actual costs, including transmission incentives, is required to identify projects that have either remained on budget or experienced cost increases, which may indicate the need for additional questions about project execution.
At a time of sharply rising customer bills and increasing concern about the prudence of transmission planning decisions, transmission owners have an obligation to address those concerns and help customers, state regulators, and stakeholders better understand how their money is being spent. Transmission companies that do so in a transparent way will be able to increase consumer confidence, which in turn will provide long-term regulatory certainty for transmission investors. I therefore encourage transmission owners, states, and stakeholders to develop and use procedures to provide the needed information transparency to all transmission investments, especially those not planned through robust regional processes. If further action by the Commission is needed to ensure customers have access to information needed to assess the prudence of transmission owners’ investments, I encourage parties to bring the issue to the Commission, as Maine OPA has done in this case.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
________________________
Judy W. Chang
Commissioner
[1] See Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 139 FERC ¶ 61,127, at P 9 (2012), order on investigation, 143 FERC ¶ 61,149 (2013), order on reh’g, 146 FERC ¶ 61,209, order on compliance, 146 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2014), order on reh’g, 150 FERC ¶ 61,024, order on compliance, 150 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2015).
[2] ISO New England Inc., 192 FERC ¶ 61,234, at P 42 (2025).
[3] Id. PP 42-44.
[4] See Transmission Planning and Cost Management, Docket No. AD22-8-000.
[5] Bld’g for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation, Order No. 1920, 187 FERC ¶ 61,068, at PP 1625-48, order on reh’g & clarification, Order No. 1920-A, 189 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2024), order on reh’g & clarification, Order No. 1920-B, 191 FERC ¶ 61,026 (2025).
[6] Notably, the Commission refers to this data in finding that information responsive to Maine OPA questions 1(a), 3(a), 3(b), and 3(d) is available. ISO New England Inc., 192 FERC ¶ 61,234, at P 50 (2025).
[7] Under this process, the three investor-owned utilities in California report on a semi-annual basis FERC-jurisdictional transmission projects over $1 million for the prior five years, the current year, and four future years. See https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M507/K896/507896441.PDF
[8] The data template has 70 fields including project descriptions, primary purpose, secondary purpose, age of assets, analyses performed that indicate the need for a project, a utility’s prioritization ranking, project status, original project cost, current (or actual) cost, and permit status amongst others. See https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/industries-and-topics/documents/energy/electric-energy/electric-costs/resolution-e-5252-atch-b-tpr-process-data-template.pdf