#

The month of March hasn’t been good to Northern Pass and its parent company, Eversource. First, there were the conflicting media reports that its Canadian partner, Hydro-Québec (HQ), isn’t paying for any part of the hydroelectric transmission line in New Hampshire. Then, there were allegations that their Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) with HQ expired. Now, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) ruled against a petition filed by Eversource for a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with HQ, and there is a competing bid from a rival energy company that could give them a run for their money.

In June 2016, Eversource announced it had reached an agreement with HQ that would guarantee at least 100 megawatts of electric energy would be available to New Hampshire consumers at lower than the average market prices from the proposed Northern Pass project. Northern Pass is the controversial transmission project running 192 miles from Canada to Deerfield.

Under the terms of the proposed PPA, HQ would sell and Eversource would buy 100 megawatts of electricity and then resell it to the wholesale energy market, which would include any net gains or costs of its purchases and sales in its electric distribution rates.

The plan would have put the terms in writing that the Northern Pass project would benefit New Hampshire by ensuring 10 percent of the total 1,090 megawatts of energy would have stayed in the state. However, the PUC ruled Monday that the PPA would be against state law.

“That proposal, however, goes against the overriding principle of restructuring, which is to harness the power of competitive markets to reduce costs to consumers by separating the functions of generation, transmission, and distribution,” the ruling states. “Allowing Eversource to use the [Stranded Cost Recovery Charge] mechanism as a ratepayer financed ‘backstop’ for its proposed 20-year PPA would serve as an impermissible intermingling of a generation activity with distribution rates. We cannot approve such an arrangement under existing laws, and accordingly dismiss Eversource’s petition.”

It’s important to note that a PPA is not required for the Northern Pass project to receive the green light from the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC), which will make a final decision on it this fall.

“A Power Purchase Agreement is not a requirement of our permit process, but the PPA was proposed as a response to many, including business leaders and policy makers, who asked for a guarantee that New Hampshire, as host state of the Northern Pass project, will receive its fair share of energy from the project and economic benefits above and beyond those received by other New England states,” said Martin Murray, spokesman for Northern Pass, in an email to NH Journal.

Senate Bill 128 is being currently consider in the New Hampshire Senate and would make the restructuring law more flexible to allow the PPA. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill on Thursday.

“We know there is broad support in the Legislature to provide regulators with assurance that they have the authority to consider whether proposals like the PPA would be in the best interest of customers,” Murray said. “SB128, if passed into law, would provide that assurance.”

Opponents of the Northern Pass project applauded the decision saying it’s a risky project that could put ratepayers at risk.

WHO PAYS FOR PROJECT IS STILL MURKY

Eversource has also received criticism in the past few weeks over the confusion on who is ultimately paying for the Northern Pass project. Canadian media started a firestorm after HQ officials were quoted saying they would not “pay a penny” for the Northern Pass line in the United States.

HQ issued a statement saying it won’t abandon the project and that the Canadian reports were written in error.

However, the public relations clean up from HQ and Eversource was messy and left more questions than answers for concerned parties. Allegations came up that the two energy companies had an expired TSA, which is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) before the project could be approved by the SEC and it specifies the respective rights and obligations of the parties involved in the project, including the terms for recovery of costs.

In the original TSA approved by the FERC in 2010, it states that HQ would pay for initial construction costs and Eversource has repeatedly said that New Hampshire ratepayers would not foot the bill for the project.

Yet, HQ’s recent comments about not paying for the line in the United States seem to contradict what the TSA states.

“I am concerned that the means for payment and assurance of profitability sought by HQ may have effects on the quantification of benefits of the project to the people of New Hampshire,” wrote senior assistant attorney general Peter C.L. Roth in a March 20 letter on behalf of the Counsel for the Public to Eversource.

“On numerous occasions, in the Application and accompanying testimony, the Applicants have expressly stated that HQ or one of its subsidiaries would pay for the entire costs of the line,” he added.

Marvin Bellis, senior counsel for Eversource, responded to the letter on Tuesday, which was obtained by NH Journal, stating that the TSA is still in full force, but did not directly answer Roth’s questions about the cost of the project.

“To the extent you have further questions about these issues you will be free to inquire about them during cross examination when the hearings commence in April,” he wrote. “However, as noted above, the fundamental financial structure of the Project has not changed, and you, as the Counsel for the Public, are in no different a position today vis-à-vis the TSA than you were at the time the application was filed.”

The trial-like adjudicative hearings are scheduled to begin in April and run for about 40 days before the SEC makes a decision on the application by September 31.

This spring, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is expected to seek a “request for proposals” for clean energy delivered to customers. If Eversource and HQ are successful in winning the proposal bid, they will modify the current TSA agreement or add a new one. Regardless if they get the nod or not, Eversource reiterated that New Hampshire customers would not pay for the transmission line.

However, the bill could end up being paid by Massachusetts ratepayers. HQ said its expecting Massachusetts electric companies, who in turn could call on the consumers, to pay for the line.

“We know so far with certainty that it is the electricity distribution companies of Massachusetts who will be assuming the cost of this project,” HQ spokesperson Lynn St. Laurent told Canadian-media outlet The Suburban in a March 15 report. “As for the American portion of the proposed transmission line…once again, we say that [HQ] is not paying a cent for it, whether aerial or underground.”

NATIONAL GRID ADDS PROPOSAL TO MIX

To make matters even more complicated for Northern Pass, National Grid announced Tuesday that it wants to build a power transmission project from Canada to Londonderry.

Their plan, called the Granite State Power Link, would use wind and hydroelectric energy in eastern Canada and provide 1,200 megawatts to the region. It would transmit the power along 58 miles of line in Vermont, cross the Connecticut River into Littleton, N.H., and continue for 114 miles, before terminating in Londonderry.

The project has a $1 billion price tag, and would require 6 miles of new transmission lines in New Hampshire, mostly using its existing rights-of-ways in utility corridors.

Northern Pass welcomed the new project, stating it reiterates the region’s need for more renewable energy, but National Grid seemed less optimistic about both projects succeeding.

For comparison, Northern Pass is projected to cost $1.6 billion, provide 1,090 megawatts of power and be operation in late 2019 or early 2020. It would carry hydropower from Canada and new transmission lines would need to be built and some are expected to be buried.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has not weighed in on the project yet.

WAITING FOR SUNUNU, LABOR UNION REACTIONS

On NHPR Tuesday morning, Sununu reiterated his support for Northern Pass, before news broke about National Grid. He said it’s a “good project” and a “needed project” in order to keep energy costs down in the state for residents and commercial industries.

Sununu has been courting businesses across the globe since he was inaugurated in January, as part of his “100 businesses in 100 days” campaign pledge to woo them to set up shop in New Hampshire. He told NHPR he has spoken to businesses in the United States, including Arizona, but he has also spoken to ones in China and Taiwan.

It’s not immediately clear if he would change his support for Northern Pass to the National Grid project.

However, labor unions representing construction workers have also indicated they support the Northern Pass project.

North America’s Building Trades Unions sent a priority list to President Donald Trump earlier this year, which included Northern Pass on it.

McClatchy reported Monday that the White House requested the list of projects, as it switches gears and gets ready to focus on infrastructure. They were seeking projects to approve that require little to no federal funding.

It’s also not immediately known which energy project labor unions in New Hampshire would support.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Over the weekend, Northern Pass officials were trying to clean up after a bad week in the press. Opponents to the hydroelectric transmission line from Canada to Deerfield were suggesting that Eversource, parent company of Northern Pass Transmission, LLC (NPT), and its Canadian partner, Hydro-Québec (HQ), were not on the same page for the project and New Hampshire residents would ultimately pay for it.

Eversource spent the last few days trying to correct the record after various reports stated that HQ would “not pay a penny” for the Northern Pass line in the United States. The issue began earlier this month when Québec stakeholders asked why the state-owned utility company was paying to bury part of the line in New Hampshire, but refused to do the same in Québec. That led to a series of public statements where HQ said New England electricity consumers would pay for the cost of Northern Pass.

“The claim that they are making, that New Hampshire ratepayers will not be paying any of this cost, needs to be backed up with evidence that Hydro-Québec agrees to that,” Will Abbott, vice president of policy for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, told NH Journal. “It’s not clear that they produced any evidence that HQ has agreed to this as it has been proposed. It certainly seems like the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) shouldn’t be proceeding if there is a question about that issue.”

Northern Pass has reiterated that New Hampshire residents would “not pay for any costs associated with the project.” It’s written all over their website.

However, groups opposed to the project are not convinced that’s true and they point to an “expired” Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) between Eversource and HQ as proof that the two energy companies are not seeing eye-to-eye.

On Tuesday, Will Abbott, vice president of policy for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, one of the biggest challengers of the Northern Pass project, sent a letter to U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen asking for assistance in coordinating an inquiry to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to determine the status of a TSA between the two entities.

“Northern Pass has repeatedly argued that New Hampshire ratepayers are not paying for the construction  costs of their project,” the letter states. “They repeatedly cite the TSA as the basis for their claim that Hydro-Québec is paying for the construction of the transmission line.”

The TSA is crucial to the project because it specifies the respective rights and obligations of the parties involved in the project, including the terms for recovery of costs. The FERC-approved TSA is also required before the project can be approved by the SEC.

A Caledonian Record report called into question the current status of the TSA agreement, which began in October 2010. The original agreement stated HQ would reimburse Eversource for all development costs of the now-estimated $1.6 billion Northern Pass line. In December 2013, and HQ amended the agreement, including an extension to the deadline for obtaining all regulatory approvals.

“The parties have agreed to replace the term ‘third anniversary’ with the term ‘approval deadline,’ which is defined to mean Feb. 14, 2017, or such other date to which the parties shall mutually agree in writing,” the agreement states.

In the Forest Society’s letter to Shaheen, they claim that “it has become apparent” that the TSA “has expired, without any replacement agreement.”

“As of today, there is no record that HQ and NPT have agreed on a new TSA, or that they have submitted any new TSA proposal to FERC for its review,” the letter states.

Eversource responded Friday with their own letter to Shaheen saying the Forest Society “wrongly claims” that the TSA expired on February 14.

“The Approval Deadline was, in fact, extended earlier this year by written agreement between NPT and HQ,” the letter states. “Accordingly, the extension of the Approval Deadline was fully consistent with the terms and conditions of the already approved TSA.”

Northern Pass posted Thursday on its website that the term of the TSA began on the original execution date in October 2010 and continues 40 years from the time Northern Pass begins operation, unless it is terminated earlier.

Craig Cano, a spokesman for the FERC, made it clear that the TSA between Eversource and HQ still exists and is in use.

“The TSA was accepted with a 40-year term so [it] does not need to be ‘renewed’ in 2017,” he told NH Journal. “The item…may have confused the provision that set the Feb. 14, 2017 deadline for obtaining all regulatory approvals with the agreement itself.”

That means that Eversource and HQ, back in 2014, set a February 14 deadline for regulatory approvals — state, local, provincial, or federal — that the parties must obtain for the project. The SEC, a regulatory agency, still hasn’t put their final approval on the project, and isn’t expected to make a final decision until this fall. The amended language in the TSA allows for Eversource and HQ to agree on another date for those final approvals, but it doesn’t invalidate the whole TSA, or mean that the agreement has expired.

Martin Murray, spokesman for Northern Pass, told NH Journal that Eversource and HQ agreed in writing earlier this year to extend the deadline and the extension does not need to be filed with the FERC. The extension of the agreement is until 2020 and a copy of the written agreement will be filed with the SEC this week.

Adjudicative hearings of the Northern Pass docket are expected to begin in April, with the SEC to make a final decision on the project by September 30.

Gov. Chris Sununu voiced his support for the project again when he was in Montréal on Monday, as part of his campaign tour to bring businesses to New Hampshire.

“Given our economic dynamics in New Hampshire, given our need for lower energy prices, our rich history with our manufacturing industry, there is no doubt that Northern Pass presents a great opportunity for New Hampshire, a great opportunity for Québec,” he told members of the Canadian press. “It’s a win-win on both sides. It’s a project I always said should happen, could happen, and I believe has to happen.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

In the past week, there have been several questions raised about the cost of the Northern Pass project and who is poised to pick up the cost once it’s completed. It also led to some public scuffles in the media between Hydro-Québec (HQ) and its New Hampshire partner, Eversource.

On Thursday, both companies said they remain committed to the $1.6 billion project to transport 1,090 megawatts of electricity to New England from Canada to Deerfield through 192 miles of hydroelectric power lines.

“Eversource and Hydro-Québec have had a long-standing partnership to develop a transmission project that would deliver much-needed clean hydropower from Québec to New England energy consumers,” according to a statement from Eversource.

But just one day prior, in three Le Journal de Québec articles, it appeared that HQ was reassessing its financial arrangement with Eversource. One article claimed HQ would pay to bury about 60 miles of the line, mostly through the White Mountain National Forest, but refused to bury about 11 miles of the line in Canada, despite pleas from local residents.

A second article stated that HQ has assumed the risks of the project and would have to pay the entire cost. Yet, a HQ official claimed New England consumers would ultimately pay for the $500 million additional cost for burying the lines and the entire Northern Pass project — a private transmission line for the exclusive use of HQ.

The third article suggested that HQ was considering abandoning the project if it wouldn’t be profitable for Québec residents. HQ is a crown corporation, meaning it’s a business essentially owned by the Province of Québec.

On March 8, HQ spokesman Serge Abergel told 98.5 FM that his company “will not pay a penny to build the line in the United States.” He argued that Hydro-Québec wanted “the transportation costs to be borne by the American customer and that’s what the partner Eversource says too.”

But in the Northern Pass statement, the company reiterated that the cost of the project will not fall on New Hampshire customers.

“Northern Pass Transmission, an Eversource subsidiary, will finance and build Northern Pass, the U.S. portion of the transmission project,” Eversource said in a statement. “Hydro-Québec will do the same for the Canadian portion of the project. The cost of Northern Pass will be recovered through use of the transmission line for delivery of energy to New England.”

Both companies said they are also working on a proposal to supply hydropower from Québec, using the Northern Pass transmission line, to Massachusetts. Proposals are expected to be submitted to the Commonwealth in the spring.

“We firmly believe in the strength of our alliance with our American partner, Eversource,” Hydro-Québec said in a statement.

What led to this very public skirmish between the two entities? It could have to do with the fact that HQ and Eversource may not have renewed its Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The TSA the companies filed in 2010 states that HQ would reimburse Eversource for all development costs. In December 2013, Eversource requested an amendment to their 2011 TSA noting delays in the project and wanting to change the term “third anniversary” with the term “approval deadline,” which they set as Feb. 14, 2017 or another date both parties mutually agree to in writing.

Spokespersons at the FERC said that to date there is no signed and renewed TSA between Eversource and HQ on file, according to a report from the Caledonian Record. Eversource also declined to say if they had a renewed TSA with HQ, what the terms were, and if it would present it to investors.

The TSA is important because it outlines how Eversouce is expected to be paid to build the Northern Pass line.

The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests sent a letter to U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen on Tuesday, asking her to make inquires at the FERC about the status of the TSA between Eversource and HQ:

“Northern Pass has repeatedly argued that New Hampshire ratepayers are not paying for the construction  costs of their project,” the letter states. “They repeatedly cite the TSA as the basis for their claim that Hydro-Québec is paying for the construction of the transmission line. The SEC [Site Evaluation Committee] and interveners in the upcoming adjudicatory hearing cannot fully address the economic issues of impact — or whether the project is in the public interest — without the information provided by the TSA affirming that there is in fact a legally binding agreement between the two parties to this project.”

Hearings are expected to begin on the Northern Pass project next month, which will help a subcommittee of the Site Evaluation Committee make the ultimate decision if the project will move forward or not by September 30.

While it appears the two companies have publicly reconciled their differences for now, Northern Pass project opponents are using the disagreement to reiterate their point that it’s likely Granite Staters, or even Bay Staters, will pick up the cost at some point if the project is completed.

“There’s no reason to believe them now about who will pay for Northern Pass,” said Judy Reardon, senior adviser of the group Protect the Granite State, in a statement. “You and I will pay the bill, but only if we allow Northern Pass to succeed.”

Those skeptical about the project also argue that the economic climate is changing for electric utilities, making the project less advantageous than when it was first proposed.

In 2011, when Northern Pass was first proposed, high natural gas prices drove electricity prices higher. However, those prices have dropped in recent years, and New England is currently seeing its lowest electricity costs in a decade.

According to a study released last week by the Carsey Center for Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, the average residential electric bill in the state is the same as the national average, and the average commercial electric bill is actually lower than the national average.

People who support Northern Pass say it will create jobs, deliver cheap electricity to the New England market, and is a important long-term economic investment into keeping energy rates low for residents and businesses. Gov. Chris Sununu has been a longtime supporter of the Northern Pass project.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.