Will Northern Pass raise electric rates in New Hampshire?

Jul 29, 2011 by  | Bio |  2 Comment »

PSNH: In a death spiral? (photo credit: CC/Nick Seibert)

In every possible way – on television, in mailings, and on the web – New Hampshire has heard again and again that the proposed Northern Pass transmission project will reduce electric rates for New Hampshire customers. The claim is at the core of PSNH’s case that the project is a good deal for New Hampshire. If only it were true…

As I mentioned in a post last month, the very design of the project as it stands is for reduced electric rates to benefit only those ratepayers that get their power from the regional electric markets. In New Hampshire, homes and small businesses in PSNH territory would see very little benefit because their energy rates are overwhelmingly tied to propping up PSNH’s old, inefficient fleet of coal-fired and oil-fired power plants.  These plants would not be able to compete with other cleaner power sources if forced to compete in the marketplace, something New Hampshire law does not currently allow and PSNH has fought to avoid. (Supposedly, an agreement between PSNH and Hydro-Québec for some power for PSNH customers is in the works, but, if it ever materializes, Northern Pass has said it would only be for a small amount of power, which would not do much to change PSNH’s overall portfolio. Northeast Utilities admitted as much in testimony before the Massachusetts DPU this week and also noted that there is “really little activity” around securing any such agreement.)

As explained in a piece on NHPR featuring our own Jonathan Peress, the above-market costs of PSNH’s aging fleet are causing large customers to buy power from (or “migrate” to) cheaper suppliers. Regulators this week turned back PSNH’s attempt to saddle those customers with its fleet’s escalating costs. But this situation is creating a so-called “death spiral,” because PSNH is forced to raise its rates again and again on a shrinking group of customers – homeowners and small businesses who do not have the purchasing power to contract with another supplier.

What does this all have to do with Northern Pass? The truth is that Northern Pass will – indeed, is intended to – make the “death spiral” worse.  If Northern Pass lowers the regional price of power as all those ads proclaim, it will make PSNH power even less competitive, causing even more customers with choices to leave PSNH behind.  PSNH spokesman Martin Murray so much as promises that result when he says in the NHPR piece that Northern Pass power will not displace PSNH generation. As Jonathan explained on NHPR, that means that the same homeowners and small businesses that will have to deal with 180 miles of new transmission lines will have higher, not lower, electric rates. This is not the Northern Pass story PSNH has been telling.

None of this makes sense. PSNH’s coal- and oil-fired power plants are bad for ratepayers and disasters for public health and the environment. As our lawsuit filed last week makes clear, PSNH’s efforts to prop up its largest plant failed to comply with even basic emissions permitting requirements and have increased that plant’s emissions. Any plan to import Canadian power with PSNH’s name on it should provide real benefits to its own customers and focus on responsibly freeing New Hampshire (and the lungs of millions of New Englanders) from PSNH’s dirty, uncompetitive dinosaurs.

ADDED: I should also point out, in the same Massachusetts DPU proceeding mentioned above, that counsel for NSTAR (the junior partner in Northern Pass) asserted that “[i]t’s entirely speculative as to what the impact of Northern Pass will be on rates in New Hampshire, and then [migration].”  Quite a statement given Northern Pass’s public relations campaign asserting that rates will go down. And we disagree with NSTAR’s counsel wholeheartedly. It is reasonable – not speculative – to expect the current proposal will lead to higher rates for PSNH ratepayers.

2 Responses to “Will Northern Pass raise electric rates in New Hampshire?”

  1. Jim Dannis

    Thanks Christophe, excellent post! It’s still hard to see what PSNH, as a separate, stand-alone entity, gains from Northern Pass. Sure, the parent company, Northeast Utilities, gets the fat, above-market 12.56% return on equity, fully guaranteed by Hydro Quebec.

    But what does PSNH get?

    There has been some suggestion that PSNH may get its own separate money stream from Northern Pass. The first year revenue/expense sheet for Northern Pass included in the FERC TSA filing indicates that NP may pay “right of way rental fees”. Have any facts been developed that would show that PSNH will be paid ROW rental fees by NP, for the 140 miles of existing PSNH ROW that the project would use?

    If that were the case (and it is entirely unclear whether it is the case!), that would provide a few explanations. It would explain why PSNH so vehemently opposes any alternative routing that would be “off” the PSNH ROWs. If a more sensible routing (burying the lines on rail or highway ROWs, or the existing northern Vermont route) were used, PSNH would not receive any ROW rental fees for this route.

    Also, if PSNH in fact stands to be paid a market value rental for the value to Northern Pass of the existing ROW corridor, the numbers could be very large. On basic financial valuation principles, annual rentals could run well into the tens of millions of dollars. That would give money to PSNH that could represent fingers in the dike for migration and other strategic issues.

    Could you post an update with CLF’s thoughts on this, plus any information you’ve managed to find on whether in fact PSNH expects to receive ROW rentals from NP?

    Thanks,

    Jim and Sandy Dannis

  2. Christophe Courchesne

    Jim and Sandy –

    Your interpretation of the TSA filing is consistent with ours. We have seen no direct additional information on this issue beyond the TSA filing and the Presidential Permit application, and the statements in those documents are not necessarily consistent. The Presidential Permit application does state that, “To the extent possible, Northern Pass intends to use existing transmission ROW under an arrangement with PSNH.” We have assumed that this arrangement is either a conveyance of the ROW to Northern Pass (as many documents imply) or a rental agreement. Either way, we agree that it should be expected that PSNH and Northern Pass each have substantial incentives to use PSNH ROWs over other alternatives. CLF believes these incentives should not be relevant to permitting of the project – the key question is what is in the public interest.