New England utilities ask FERC to pause a $1.5 billion refund order

A major transmission refund fight moves into its next phase

Two major utility groups in New England are asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to put a recent refund decision on hold, escalating a long-running dispute over transmission rates in the region. According to the supplied report, Eversource and Avangrid want FERC to stay a March 18 decision that cut the base return on equity for New England transmission owners and triggered about $1.5 billion in customer refunds tied to charges dating back to 2011.

The case is significant because it reaches across years of transmission billing, affects several major utilities, and could reshape the economics of New England grid infrastructure. It also shows how long regulatory disputes over utility returns can persist, with the underlying complaints stretching back more than a decade.

What FERC decided

The March 18 decision, as described in the candidate source text, reduced the base return on equity for New England transmission owners by 1 percentage point to 9.57%. That change did more than lower rates going forward. It also required transmission owners, mainly utilities, to provide refunds with interest for a 15-month period beginning October 1, 2011, and then again from October 16, 2014, to the present.

The scale is substantial. Eversource’s utilities, including Connecticut Light and Power, NSTAR Electric, and Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, owe about $880 million in refunds, according to the filing cited in the report. Avangrid’s New England utilities, Central Maine Power and The United Illuminating Co., owe about $203 million. Jefferies equity analysts separately estimate that National Grid owes about $260 million, with other transmission owners also affected.

The Maine Office of the Public Advocate estimates that the ruling reduces New England transmission rates by about $140 million a year. That makes the decision relevant not only as a historical refund dispute, but also as a present-day cost issue for regional electricity customers.

Why the utilities want a stay

Eversource and Avangrid argue that FERC should pause implementation while the legal process plays out. Their central point, according to the source text, is that immediate refunds could create “rate whiplash” if the commission’s order is later overturned in court. In other words, utilities say customers could receive money back now only to face another reversal later.

That argument is notable because it reframes delay as a form of consumer protection. Instead of contesting the case solely on financial grounds, the companies are presenting the timing issue as a stability problem for customers and the market. Whether regulators accept that logic is another matter, but it is clearly part of the current strategy.

ISO New England and the region’s utilities have also asked FERC to extend the 30-day refund deadline to December 13, according to the report. That request underscores how difficult the immediate administration of the refunds could be even before the broader legal dispute is resolved.

A dispute rooted in years of litigation

The latest filing sits on top of an unusually old and complicated procedural history. The report says FERC’s ruling resolved four complaints over New England transmission owners’ return on equity, with the first complaint filed in 2011. In 2017, an appeals court vacated FERC’s initial decision on the first three complaints, sending the issue further into prolonged litigation.

That long timeline matters. Transmission assets are financed over decades, and allowed returns are among the most important variables in utility earnings. When regulators revisit those returns years later, the consequences can ripple through corporate finances, customer bills, and future investment expectations.

The utilities have not yet filed the rehearing request that would normally precede an appeal to court, according to the source text, but the path appears clear. If FERC does not change course, further litigation is likely. That means the current fight is not just about whether refunds are owed, but also about how quickly any money changes hands and how much uncertainty the region may face while the case continues.

Why this matters beyond New England

Although the decision is specific to New England transmission owners, the case has broader relevance. It highlights the tension between two policy goals that do not always align cleanly: protecting consumers from excessive utility returns and preserving a stable investment environment for long-lived grid infrastructure.

Transmission expansion remains central to reliability and to the integration of new power resources. That makes return-on-equity policy more than a technical regulatory detail. If allowed returns are seen as too high, customers pay more than necessary. If they are seen as too unstable or too vulnerable to retroactive challenge, utilities and investors may argue that grid development becomes harder to finance.

The immediate reality, though, is simpler. Customers in New England are theoretically in line for a large refund, while utilities are trying to delay that outcome until the courts have a chance to weigh in. The companies say a pause would prevent disruption. Consumer advocates and regulators may see the matter differently, especially after a dispute that has already stretched across multiple administrations and more than a decade of filings.

For now, FERC faces a procedural question with real financial consequences: whether to force refunds now or wait for the next round of legal challenges to unfold.

This article is based on reporting by Utility Dive. Read the original article.