FERC has extended the timeline for the New England transmission owners to refund customers for excess revenues collected after the commission in March set a lower base return on equity with a 2014 effective date (EL11-66, et al.).

The deadline for completing the refunds — originally set for just 30 days after the March 19 ROE order — will now be May 20, 2027.

FERC’s 14-month refund timeline falls in between those proposed by a group of consumer advocates, state agencies and end users and jointly by ISO-NE and the TOs.

The latter sought to push the deadline to December 2027. The RTO argued that “proposed refund schedule represents the fastest timeline under which ISO-NE can calculate and administer the refunds.”

In contrast, the consumer groups argued that FERC should not allow an extension exceeding nine months.

“A limited extension of the refund deadline may be appropriate, but the wholesale 20-month extension requested by the [TOs] and ISO-NE is premature, unsubstantiated and excessive,” they wrote. They argued that ISO-NE and the TOs failed to provide evidence or detail to justify their timeline.

“Given the extraordinary nature of the financial burden endured by New England ratepayers since the commencement of these proceedings, the [TOs] and ISO-NE should make every available effort to issue refunds as soon as practicable,” the consumer groups wrote, arguing that ISO-NE transmission rates are “by far” the highest of any RTO.

They also urged ISO-NE and the TOs to refund customers “on a rolling basis” prior to the deadline, to the extent that this is possible.

TOs already are contesting the refund obligations, which they estimate to total more than $1.5 billion. Eversource Energy and Avangrid, the companies with the largest transmission footprints in the region, have asked FERC for a stay on the bulk of the refund obligations. (See New England TOs Seek Stay of ‘Astonishing’ Refund Obligations.)

On April 15, the two companies filed an emergency petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with a similar request for a stay on the refund obligations.

“Absent a stay from this court, the order will impose immediate, irreversible financial and operational harm on the [companies] and their customers, harm that cannot be undone even if the order is later vacated,” they wrote.

“Critically, an extension of the refund deadline does not cure these harms,” they added. “Even if FERC were to grant additional time to process refunds, the [companies] would still be required to carry the full retroactive refund obligation on their balance sheets and to plan for its financing.”