The complex relationship between local control and electricity rates in New Hampshire is a topic that demands attention. As the state's Consumer Advocate, I find myself grappling with the implications of our state's reliance on ISO New England, a regional transmission organization that operates without shareholders. This entity, based in Delaware, holds significant influence over our electricity grid and market dynamics.
The state Constitution emphasizes free competition and limited corporate power, but in practice, New Hampshire's electric sovereignty has been ceded to ISO New England. This organization manages the grid, oversees transmission system development, and runs wholesale electricity markets. The restructuring of the electric industry in 1996 led to the sale of generation assets by utilities and the transfer of 'resource adequacy' responsibilities to ISO New England. This shift effectively diminished New Hampshire's role in transmission and wholesale electricity, impacting a substantial portion of our monthly bills.
The London Economics report, commissioned by the General Court, suggests that New Hampshire could potentially withdraw from ISO New England. However, this option comes with a hefty price tag of approximately $148 million annually, primarily due to higher transmission and energy supply costs, legal fees, and exit fees imposed by FERC. The report also highlights the governance structure of ISO New England, noting the involvement of advisory bodies and the indirect influence of individual states. Yet, this structure raises questions about accountability and the potential for unaccountable decision-making.
The comparison with PJM, the nation's largest regional transmission organization, is intriguing. PJM is currently facing a governance crisis, with FERC's chairman warning of potential intervention if issues are not addressed by September. The contrast between PJM's crisis and ISO New England's perceived stability may be attributed to the size of their transmission grids and the varying levels of public scrutiny. New Hampshire's high transmission charges, at 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 1.9 cents in the PJM region, further underscore the need for scrutiny and accountability.
The London Economics study, despite its limitations, serves as a reminder that New Hampshire retains a degree of influence. It prompts us to reassert our role and hold ISO New England and transmission utilities accountable. As the Consumer Advocate, I advocate for transparency, fair competition, and the protection of New Hampshire's interests in the complex world of electricity rates and local control.
