Energy affordability is in the spotlight, and the public is rightfully demanding answers.

A significant factor increasing bills is the expense of maintaining and upgrading the aging electric power grid. The cost of transmission —the long-distance lines that move electricity across the region from where it is generated to our homes and businesses—has more than doubled since 2005, from 10% to 24% of the average customer bill.

If we’re serious about protecting families and businesses from unnecessary energy costs, Connecticut and New England need an independent entity that scrutinizes transmission projects and ensures they are correctly sized and optimized for actual grid needs. Consumers should be paying for reliability and resilience, not excess infrastructure that pads shareholder profits.

Currently, transmission companies are pouring money into refurbishing and replacing old transmission infrastructure. The annual cost of these local projects, called Asset Condition Projects (ACPs), has skyrocketed regionally from $58 million in 2016 to $1.2 billion in 2024.

In Connecticut, there were 18 ACPs under construction as of October 2025, at an estimated cost of over $1 billion, with 12 more ACPs planned for the future. ACP projects now dwarf investments in other kinds of new transmission, and Connecticut and other New England electric customers are on the hook.

ACPs could strategically increase grid capacity through the use of new technologies and upgrades, but they most often replace existing equipment or make minimal upgrades, failing to optimize the system as a whole. Unoptimized ACPs are a missed opportunity to maximize cost efficiencies in transmission planning. In some cases, ACPs may be overbuilt, and in others a lack of anticipatory investments may prevent the grid from growing to accommodate future electrification or new generation (like renewable energy) in a least-cost manner – leading to unnecessary ratepayer costs.

Oversight of ACP spending has been practically non-existent. ACPs are reviewed by the regional grid operator’s (ISO-NE) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), but they are often submitted to the PAC as little as 90 days before construction is set to begin. That is far too little time to do meaningful review. And, states and stakeholders face a major informational disadvantage to rebut and refine transmission owners’ plans.

Not a single ACP has ever been modified, much less rejected, by the advisory committee. The current process’s cursory review means the 18 ACPs currently being built in Connecticut received at best a cursory glance before being approved. Similarly, billions of dollars in ACP spending are approved across New England without either a real evaluation or any regard for the region’s larger goal: affordably meeting rising demand.

For the first time, this is changing, with the implementation of an Asset Condition Reviewer (ACR), a new function that ISO-NE has created in response to criticism of the prior lackluster oversight. The ACR is supposed to evaluate projects and provide suggested alternatives, but the ACR does not have any authority to modify or reject projects. In fact, it has very little decision-making authority at all, designed instead to provide technical/advisory review. Currently, five asset condition projects have been selected for initial review by this reviewer as a test, and the region should pay very close attention: if all five projects make it through unmodified, it will be clear the ACR cannot fully serve as the independent monitor customers need.

The better solution is what’s called an ‘”Independent Transmission Monitor” (ITM). A properly empowered ITM can act in the consumer interest by ensuring transmission lines (both new and rebuilt) are constructed in an efficient, coordinated, and accountable manner. An ITM could holistically evaluate transmission projects and plans, and would be responsible for ensuring that transmission projects work as a system: complementing one another, increasing the capacity of the entire grid, incorporating low-cost technologies to optimize the efficient operation of the whole grid, and, critically, achieving all this at least-cost to protect ratepayers.

The ACR may be a move in the right direction —but it is not the region’s best solution to the problem of overbuilt, under-scrutinized transmission. Connecticut’s policymakers and stakeholders must continue to press for a strong oversight function to close the glaring regulatory gap allowing uncontrolled ACP spending. With energy costs climbing, every customer dollar spent deserves scrutiny. Establishing an independent, regional ITM with a robust oversight function could save customers many millions of dollars.

The reliability of the electric grid and the prosperity of the economy hinges on moving electricity efficiently and accountably. Leaving billions of dollars to the full discretion of transmission companies must end. An independent transmission monitor function is essential to guide this transformation.

Connecticut and the region cannot afford delay—closing this oversight gap is imperative now.

Anya Poplavska, Noah Berman and Joseph LaRusso of the Acadia Center.