Maine ratepayers will be on the hook for $32 million if Boston-based Eversource Energy follows through on a plan to rebuild a 49-mile transmission line in New Hampshire, according to Maine’s public advocate, who has joined other state officials in calling the scale of the project excessive.
Consumer Advocates of New England, the group of officials opposing the project designed to upgrade the New England grid, said Eversource has failed to demonstrate that it is a “reasonable use of consumer dollars.” Less than 8% of the line needs to be replaced, according to Eversource.
Maine Public Advocate William Harwood said the impact on a typical customer’s monthly bill would be modest. He didn’t provide a dollar estimate but said Maine ratepayers would be responsible for about 9% of the $360 million total cost of the project, though Eversource pegs the total at $384 million. The price tag would be spread over the useful life of the project – Eversource says the average age of transmission pole structures is up to 60 years – and reflect a return on profit of about 10%, he said.
The cost of electricity is an increasingly pointed subject as ratepayers are called on to finance grid upgrades to withstand frequent and destructive storms and accommodate greater electrification to heat buildings and charge electric vehicles to cut carbon from the atmosphere. Costly transmission upgrades are another matter and draw fire from consumer advocates, who say the projects unnecessarily add to ratepayers’ burden and aren’t adequately regulated.
Advertisement
Don Kreis, New Hampshire’s consumer advocate, accused Eversource of “unconstrained spending” on transmission projects.
“I’m proud to join my counterparts from around the region in opposing efforts to gold-plate the transmission grid and send the bill to everyone in New England,” he said.
Eversource’s service territory is Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Because its transmission lines are part of the New England grid, the region’s ratepayers pay for upgrades.
CRITICS: MORE REGULATION IS NEEDED
The state officials also criticized what they say is a “lack of meaningful oversight” over improvements to utilities’ privately owned facilities.
Advertisement
“We need an effective regulator to police this,” Harwood said. “If we don’t do anything, we should try to get (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to exercise its authority.”
The New Hampshire project is the “poster child of what’s wrong with transmission regulation,” he said.
Proposals for new transmission lines are reviewed by federal regulators, transmission planners and the industry, but rebuilds or repairs such as what Eversource is proposing do not face similar scrutiny. Instead, state and local laws may require reviews and FERC may examine whether a utility’s spending decisions allow it to recoup costs from ratepayers.
The region’s ratepayer advocates said decisions about the scope of Eversource’s project and how much it will cost ratepayers “lie with the individual asset owner.”
If the utility follows through with the project, the ratepayer advocates say they might challenge the decision before FERC.
Advertisement
And the New England State Committee on Electricity, whose members are appointed by the region’s six governors, said without “information showing that this use of consumer dollars is well-supported and reasonable” that it’s prepared to “use its full resources to explore all available options to dispute the reasonableness of the investments, including but not limited to action at FERC.”
The owners and residents of property with a power line easement sued Eversource, FERC and the ISO on Aug. 16, demanding that the regulators play a greater role. Kristina Pastoriza and Ruth Ward, a New Hampshire state senator, asked the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire to order FERC to end the ISO-NE practice of exempting large transmission rebuild projects, including the Eversource plan, from a planning process “that will ensure that retail ratepayers who have no adequate remedy at law pay just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates.”
Pastoriza and Ward also asked the court to rule that an Eversource claim to rebuild the power line on their property is a breach of a 1948 easement and would unreasonably interfere with their rights and use of their property.
A FULL REBUILD IS EVERSOURCE’S PREFERENCE
Eversource sought the views of public officials and others at several meetings. It has proposed three alternative projects, but says its preference is a “full line rebuild.” That approach would have higher initial costs, but lower anticipated costs over time, the utility said. It also would avoid future disruptions to the environment and local communities and improve telecommunications capabilities for northern New Hampshire substations, the utility said. It’s estimated to be completed by 2026.
Advertisement
Eversource says rebuilding the power line will make the transmission system more resilient to extreme weather and will replace aging infrastructure that in many cases was built decades ago. Eversource said it engaged in “extensive community outreach.”
The utility said drone inspections in 2022 showed 41 natural wood structures dispersed throughout the length of the power line had woodpecker damage, rotted or split pole tops, cracked arms and other damage. Eversource also identified other parts of the line as high-priority concerns.
Harwood questioned why Eversource would favor replacing the entire transmission line of 583 structures if 41 are damaged. He called it an “example of excessive spending.” The utility says most of the structures are made of wood and would be replaced with steel structures.
Eversource offered as an alternative to replacing 43 structures and other nearby equipment that require immediate attention. But that project would lead to “many additional future structure replacement projects” as structures continue to deteriorate, Eversource said.
“Our initial analysis of a pared-back alternative that would leave some component of the line in place indicated that such an approach would ultimately result in higher costs over time as we would eventually need to go back and replace those other aging components,” an Eversource spokeswoman said.
Advertisement
Critics of utilities have called out projects upgrading transmission systems paid for by ratepayers while delivering a return for investors. “Therefore, their incentive is to build big things, whether or not those things benefit ratepayers or local communities,” said backers of last year’s unsuccessful ballot measure to establish a publicly-owned power company.
Annual spending by major U.S. electric utilities on electric transmission more than quadrupled to $40 billion in 2019, from $9.1 billion in 2000, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Spending was focused on new transmission infrastructure and the operation and maintenance of transmission systems. Spending on new transmission capacity accounted for $23.5 billion, or 59%, of the $40 billion spent by major utilities.
Ari Peskoe, director of the Harvard Law School Electricity Law Initiative, said local transmission projects often involve replacing aging infrastructure for which it’s easier to obtain public permitting than new projects. The projects also are less expensive and are often more profitable, he said. Regional projects, on the other hand, are tougher to permit and typically require agreements among neighboring utilities to allocate costs, he said.
Steve Heinz of Cumberland is a member of the Maine Council of Trout Unlimited (Merrymeeting Bay chapter).
Man’s got to eat.
It’s a simple truth, and in Maine it carries a lot of weight. For generations, people here have hunted, fished and gathered food not just as a pastime, but as a practical part of life. That reality helps explain why Maine voters embraced a constitutional right to food — and why emotions run high when fishing regulations are challenged in court.
A recent lawsuit targeting Maine’s fly-fishing-only regulations has sparked exactly that reaction. The Maine Council of Trout Unlimited believes this moment calls for clarity and restraint. The management of Maine’s fisheries belongs with professional biologists and the public process they oversee, not in the courtroom.
Advertisement
Trout Unlimited is not an anti-harvest organization, nor a club devoted to elevating one style of angling over another. We are a coldwater conservation organization focused on sustaining healthy, resilient fisheries.
Maine’s reputation as the last great stronghold of wild brook trout did not happen by accident; it is the product of decades of careful management by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), guided by science, field experience and public participation.
Fly-fishing-only waters are one of the tools MDIFW uses to protect vulnerable fisheries. They are not about exclusivity. In most cases, fly fishing involves a single hook, results in lower hooking mortality and lends itself to catch-and-release practices. The practical effect is straightforward: more fish survive and more people get a chance to fish.
Maine’s trout waters are fundamentally different from the fertile rivers of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states. Our freestone streams are cold, fast and naturally nutrient-poor. Thin soils, granite bedrock and dense forests limit aquatic productivity, meaning brook trout grow more slowly and reproduce in smaller numbers.
A single season of low flows, high water temperatures or habitat disturbance can set a population back for years. In Maine, conservation is not a luxury; it is a biological necessity.
Advertisement
In more fertile southern waters, abundant insects and richer soils allow trout populations to rebound quickly from heavy harvest and environmental stress. Maine’s waters simply do not have that buffer.
Every wild brook trout here is the product of limited resources and fragile conditions. When fish are removed faster than they can be replaced, recovery is slow and uncertain. That reality is why management tools such as fly-fishing-only waters, reduced bag limits and seasonal protections matter so much.
These rules are not about denying access; they are about matching human use to ecological capacity so fisheries remain viable over time. Climate change only raises the stakes, as warmer summers and lower late-season flows increasingly push cold-water fisheries to their limits.
Healthy trout streams also safeguard drinking water, support wildlife and sustain rural economies through guiding and outdoor tourism. Conservation investments ripple far beyond the streambank.
Lawsuits short-circuit the management system that has served Maine well for decades. Courts are not designed to weigh fisheries science or balance competing uses of a complex public resource. That work is best done through open meetings, public input and adaptive management informed by professionals who spend their careers studying Maine’s waters.
Advertisement
Man’s got to eat. But if we want Maine’s trout fisheries to endure, we also have to manage them wisely. That means trusting science, respecting process and recognizing that conservation — not confrontation — is what keeps food on the table and fish in the water.
TJ Biel scored 21 points and Newport native Ace Flagg added 10 points and seven rebounds as the University of Maine men’s basketball team held on for a 74-70 win over the New Jersey Institute of Technology on Saturday in Newark, New Jersey.
Logan Carey added 11 points and five assists for the Black Bears, who improve to 3-15 overall and 1-2 in the conference. Yanis Bamba chipped in 14 points.
Maine led by seven at the half, but NJIT went on a 13-0 run in the first four minutes to take a 43-37 lead. The Black Bears recovered and took the lead on a dunk by Keelan Steele with 7:53 left and held on for the win.
Sebastian Robinson scored 24 points and Ari Fulton grabbed 11 rebounds for NJIT (7-11, 2-1).
Clarissa Sabattis, Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseets, foreground, and other leaders of Maine’s tribes are welcomed by lawmakers into the House Chamber in March, 2023 in Augusta. (Robert F. Bukaty, /Associated Press)
Maine’s gambling landscape is set to expand after Gov. Janet Mills decided Thursday to let tribes offer online casino games, but numerous questions remain over the launch of the new market and how much it will benefit the Wabanaki Nations.
Namely, there is no concrete timeline for when the new gambling options that make Maine the eighth “iGaming” state will become available. Maine’s current sports betting market that has been dominated by the Passamaquoddy Tribe through its partnership with DraftKings is evidence that not all tribes may reap equal rewards.
A national anti-online gaming group also vowed to ask Maine voters to overturn the law via a people’s veto effort and cited its own poll finding a majority of Mainers oppose online casino gaming.
Advertisement
Here are the big remaining questions around iGaming.
1. When will iGaming go into effect?
The law takes effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns this year. Adjournment is slated for mid-April, but Mills spokesperson Ben Goodman noted it is not yet known when lawmakers will actually finish their work.
2. Where will the iGaming revenue go?
The iGaming law gives the state 18% of the gross receipts, which will translate into millions of dollars annually for gambling addiction and opioid use treatment funds, Maine veterans, school renovation loans and emergency housing relief.
Leaders of the four federally recognized tribes in Maine highlighted the “life-changing revenue” that will come thanks to the decision from Mills, a Democrat who has clashed with the Wabanaki Nations over the years over more sweeping tribal sovereignty measures.
But one chief went so far Thursday as to call her the “greatest ever” governor for “Wabanaki economic progress.”
Advertisement
3. What gaming companies will the tribes work with?
DraftKings has partnered with the Passamaquoddy to dominate Maine’s sports betting market, while the Penobscot Nation, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi’kmaq Nation have partnered with Caesars Entertainment to garner a smaller share of the revenue.
Wall Street analysts predicted the two companies will likely remain the major players in Maine’s iGaming market.
The partnership between the Passamaquoddy and DraftKings has brought in more than $100 million in gross revenue since 2024, but the Press Herald reported last month that some members of the tribe’s Sipayik reservation have criticized Chief Amkuwiposohehs “Pos” Bassett, saying they haven’t reaped enough benefits from the gambling money.
4. Has Mills always supported gambling measures?
The iGaming measure from Rep. Ambureen Rana, D-Bangor, factored into a long-running debate in Maine over gambling. In 2022, lawmakers and Mills legalized online sports betting and gave tribes the exclusive rights to offer it beginning in 2023.
But allowing online casino games such as poker and roulette in Maine looked less likely to become reality under Mills. Her administration had previously testified against the bill by arguing the games are addictive.
Advertisement
But Mills, who is in the final year of her tenure and is running in the high-profile U.S. Senate primary for the chance to unseat U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday she would let the iGaming bill become law without her signature. She said she viewed iGaming as a way to “improve the lives and livelihoods of the Wabanaki Nations.”
5. Who is against iGaming?
Maine’s two casinos in Bangor and Oxford opposed the iGaming bill, as did Gambling Control Board Chair Steve Silver and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, among other opponents.
Silver noted Hollywood Casino Bangor and Oxford Casino employ nearly 1,000 Mainers, and he argued that giving tribes exclusive rights to iGaming will lead to job losses.
He also said in a Friday interview the new law will violate existing statutes by cutting out his board from iGaming oversight.
“I don’t think there’s anything the board can do at this point,” Silver said.
Advertisement
The National Association Against iGaming has pledged to mount an effort to overturn the law via a popular referendum process known as the “people’s veto.” But such attempts have a mixed record of success.
