A coalition of state consumer advocates from five New England states has gone to federal regulators to block a $360 million Eversource transmission project that would cut a 49-mile path through New Hampshire’s White Mountains, arguing that the utility deliberately mislabeled the work to dodge meaningful public review and stick ratepayers across the region with the bill. The complaint, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week, is one of the largest coordinated pushbacks New England ratepayer advocates have ever mounted against a single Eversource transmission proposal, according to the New Hampshire Bulletin.
The project at the center of the fight is known as X-178. As proposed, it would rebuild 49 miles of high-voltage transmission line in western New Hampshire, including the replacement of roughly 580 utility poles. Eversource has classified the rebuild as an “asset condition project,” a designation that under the rules of grid operator ISO New England allows a utility to move forward with capital work to address aging or deteriorating infrastructure without the same level of stakeholder and competitive review that a larger reliability or expansion project would face.
The consumer advocates argue that classification is the entire problem. According to the complaint, fewer than 10 percent of the 580 poles slated for replacement are actually in poor enough condition to require it. The complaint cites an Eversource-commissioned analysis that, the advocates say, identified just 41 poles along the corridor as in genuine need of replacement. By treating the project as an asset condition rebuild rather than a discretionary upgrade, the advocates contend, Eversource is sidestepping the more rigorous review process that would normally apply to a $360 million spend, while still passing the full cost on to ratepayers across New England.
The complaint was brought by the Maine Office of the Public Advocate, the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, the Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, the New Hampshire Office of the Consumer Advocate and the Vermont Department of Public Service. It is filed under Sections 306 and 206 of the Federal Power Act. Section 306 lets parties complain about a utility’s failure to comply with its tariffs, and Section 206 allows challenges to practices the complainants consider unjust or unreasonable. Together, those provisions give FERC broad authority to send the project back to the drawing board if the agency agrees with the advocates.
Maine Public Advocate Heather Sanborn has been the loudest voice in the coalition. She told reporters in her home state that the cost of the project will fall on customers far beyond New Hampshire. Under the regional cost-allocation formula that governs transmission projects in New England, ratepayers in Maine are expected to bear about 10 percent of the X-178 tab, or roughly $36 million. Similar shares would land on customers in Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, even though no actual wires would be rebuilt in their states. “That will directly cost Mainers more money because there is no meaningful check on Eversource’s plans,” Sanborn said. “More broadly, this project highlights a much bigger problem.”
The bigger problem, in the advocates’ framing, is that asset condition designations have quietly become one of the most expensive corners of the New England grid. Utilities classify a growing share of their planned capital work as condition-driven rebuilds, which spares those projects from the kind of competitive solicitation and stakeholder review that bigger reliability and expansion projects must clear. Other Maine officials have made the same point in earlier filings. William Harwood, a former Maine public advocate, and Andrew Landry, a deputy public advocate, have publicly warned that “at least some New England utilities may be taking advantage of this lax review process to the benefit of their shareholders.”
Eversource sees it differently. A company spokesperson, responding to the lawsuit, said the most recent inspection of the X-178 corridor found that 40 percent of the structures need to be replaced, not the sub-10 percent figure the advocates cite. The company also argues that the rebuild is essential to enhancing reliability for customers, hardening the line against the kind of extreme winter weather that has knocked out service in northern New England in recent years, and addressing aging infrastructure that in many cases was originally built more than 50 years ago. From Eversource’s perspective, the asset condition designation is exactly what it sounds like, a recognition that decades-old poles, conductors and hardware in a rugged mountain environment cannot wait for a decade-long competitive review process.
The project is also moving on a separate state-level track. The New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee, the body that reviews large energy infrastructure projects under state law, is considering whether X-178 can move forward as proposed. That review is independent of the FERC complaint, but the two proceedings will inevitably influence each other. If FERC orders Eversource to break the project into smaller components, redesign portions of it or pull it back into the broader regional transmission planning process, the SEC’s job in Concord becomes simpler. If FERC sides with Eversource and lets the asset condition designation stand, the state review becomes the last real backstop for landowners, conservation groups and ratepayer advocates with concerns.
That state-level backstop matters because of where the line goes. The X-178 corridor runs through some of the most scenic and ecologically sensitive terrain in New Hampshire, including stretches that border or run near White Mountain National Forest land. Conservation advocates have raised concerns about visual impact, forest fragmentation and the cumulative effect of decades of utility corridor maintenance on wildlife habitat. Tourism operators along the corridor are also paying close attention, given how much of the region’s economy is tied to the visual character of the mountains.
For New Hampshire ratepayers, the immediate financial question is straightforward but unsatisfying. Eversource’s transmission spending is not voluntary in any meaningful sense once FERC and ISO New England sign off on a project. The cost recovery flows through regional tariffs, and customers across all six New England states absorb the bill on their monthly distribution charges. Granite Staters who have watched their electric bills climb over the last several years have noticed how much of the increase is transmission-driven rather than generation-driven. The X-178 fight is, in that sense, a proxy for a much bigger debate about who decides what kind of grid we build, who pays for it and who gets to push back.
The complaint at FERC is one piece of a broader push by New England consumer advocates against what they describe as excessive utility spending and inadequate review. The same coalition has been active in challenges over return-on-equity rates, refund proceedings against multiple utilities and a separate fight to claw back more than $1 billion in past transmission overcharges. The X-178 case sharpens the issue by giving regulators a concrete, identifiable project to evaluate rather than abstract methodology.
For the White Mountains, the stakes are practical. Power has to keep flowing, the existing line is genuinely aging in spots, and trees are not getting any shorter or storms any milder. The question is whether ratepayers are getting the most efficient, most accountable rebuild possible, or whether they are paying for a gold-plated replacement that goes far beyond what the line actually needs. That is the question FERC will now have to answer.
For related coverage of the broader fights over New Hampshire’s mountain corridors and energy bills, see our reporting on the federal roadless rule rollback and what it means for the White Mountain National Forest, the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest staying open after a federal review in 2026, and the shift in blue states’ approach to energy efficiency programs and utility bills.
For related coverage, see our reporting on Court Sides With State in Logan Clegg Case.
For related coverage, see our reporting on NH Sea Grant Steers $1.2 Million to Coastal and Marine Research Across the Gr….
What is the X-178 transmission project?
X-178 is Eversource’s proposed $360 million rebuild of a 49-mile high-voltage transmission corridor in western New Hampshire, including replacement of roughly 580 utility poles. Eversource has classified the work as an “asset condition project,” which would allow it to move forward without the level of stakeholder review required for larger reliability or expansion projects.
Who is suing Eversource and why?
The Maine Office of the Public Advocate, Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, Rhode Island Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, New Hampshire Office of the Consumer Advocate and Vermont Department of Public Service filed a joint complaint at FERC. They argue Eversource mislabeled the project to avoid meaningful review and that fewer than 10 percent of the poles being replaced actually need replacement.
How much will New Englanders outside New Hampshire pay?
Under New England’s regional cost-allocation rules, ratepayers in all six states share transmission costs based on a set formula. Maine ratepayers are expected to bear about 10 percent of the project cost, roughly $36 million, with similar shares falling on Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, even though no rebuild work happens in those states.
What does Eversource say about the complaint?
Eversource says its most recent inspection found that 40 percent of structures on the corridor need to be replaced, not the under-10 percent figure cited by advocates. The company describes the rebuild as essential to reliability, storm hardening and replacement of infrastructure originally built more than 50 years ago.
Is the New Hampshire state review separate from the FERC case?
Yes. The New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee is conducting its own review under state law to determine whether the project can move forward as proposed. The FERC complaint and the SEC review are separate proceedings, but the outcome of one will likely shape the other.
