In an antitrust lawsuit filed in federal court Nov. 12, Avangrid accused NextEra Energy of conducting an “exclusionary and anticompetitive scheme” to stop a major transmission project connecting New England to Quebec, costing customers millions in elevated electric rates and delaying the region’s clean energy transition (3:24-cv-30141).

“NextEra has committed anticompetitive, unfair and deceptive business practices to foreclose competition for the supply of wholesale electricity on the ISO New England marketplaces,” Avangrid told the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. “NextEra has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars from these illegal practices.”

The 1,200-MW New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project was selected by Massachusetts in 2018 in a clean energy solicitation but faced a series of regulatory, legal and political obstacles delaying its development. Construction on the project resumed in 2023 after a two-year pause. (See Avangrid Details Progress on NECEC Tx Line.)

While Avangrid initially expected the project to come online in December 2022, its “most optimistic estimated in-service date” is now January 2026, the company wrote.

The delay comes with a hefty price tag to ratepayers; in October, Massachusetts’ electric utilities submitted a settlement agreement that would result in a $521 million cost increase in 2017 dollars, equal to about $670 million today (DPU 24-160).

Carbon emissions in the state also likely increased from the delay; utilities have estimated that NECEC would reduce carbon emissions by about 1.93 million metric tons annually, equivalent to nearly 3% of the state’s emissions in 2021.

In its suit, Avangrid estimated damages of at least $350 million and demanded a jury trial. The company seeks an award of three times the damages, as well as interest, legal costs and an injunction “barring NextEra from continuing to undertake its anticompetitive scheme.”

Avangrid describes NextEra’s opposition to the project as a “a three-pronged scheme to delay or stop NECEC,” comprising “objectively baseless attacks” on its permitting applications, covert political funding to stop the project and a refusal to upgrade a circuit breaker at its Seabrook nuclear plant to accommodate the line.

“Through this premeditated and interwoven scheme, NextEra has and is continuing to exclude from the New England grid the clean and low-cost electricity NECEC would bring,” Avangrid wrote. “NextEra’s scheme has harmed competition, damaged Avangrid and consumers and held Massachusetts’ clean energy transition hostage.”

Along with the Seabrook plant, NextEra owns two oil generators in Maine, a gas plant in Massachusetts and several smaller clean energy resources throughout the region. Avangrid argued that NextEra’s incumbent generators have made “inflated profits” from the higher energy prices caused by NECEC’s delay.

Avangrid wrote that NextEra worked to slow NECEC’s permitting approval through “at least 10 serial sham petitions, which no reasonable litigant could realistically expect to succeed on the merits.”

Along with regulatory challenges, NextEra also helped fund two ballot referendum efforts in Maine to stop the project. The first referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which also invalidated a second successful ballot question opposing the line.

NextEra spent about $20 million to fund the second ballot question. In 2023, two opposition groups associated with NextEra-funded efforts to stop the project were fined a cumulative $210,000 for campaign finance violations, including a $150,000 contribution to the Maine Democratic Party made in the name of a pop-up company called Alpine Initiatives.

According to the Energy and Policy Institute, a utility watchdog nonprofit, NextEra has also funded a group working to oppose offshore wind in Maine.

Avangrid also alleges that NextEra’s efforts to avoid installing a circuit breaker at its Seabrook plant are part of the company’s overall opposition strategy.

ISO-NE determined in its interconnection analysis for NECEC that the power imported on the line would overload Seabrook’s circuit breaker. FERC ruled in early 2023 that NextEra must replace the circuit breaker, with Avangrid covering the direct costs of the upgrade (EL21-3, EL21-6). (See FERC Resolves NextEra-Avangrid Dispute over Seabrook Circuit Breaker.)

NextEra then appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that FERC does not have jurisdiction to require the company to upgrade the circuit breaker. The D.C. Circuit affirmed FERC’s ruling in October. (See DC Circuit Affirms FERC Ruling on Seabrook Circuit Breaker Dispute.)

Avangrid argued that NextEra “purposefully allowed the Seabrook breaker to creep up to almost 100% capacity so that any substantial new power source seeking to join the New England grid would be blocked unless NextEra agreed to cooperate.”

“NextEra knew the Seabrook breaker was at near-capacity for a decade, and that operating under such conditions created enormous risks associated with a potential fault, should the breaker be over-dutied,” Avangrid wrote, emphasizing that NextEra risked “human life and a nuclear plant disaster.”

Avangrid also alleged that top NextEra executives “demanded an improper quid pro quo,” offering to drop its opposition to the line if Avangrid would purchase power from the Seabrook plant at “substantially above-market rates.”

“NextEra’s naked quid pro quo offer was simply a ploy to force Avangrid to pay NextEra the money it would lose when NECEC would enter the market,” Avangrid wrote.

All of these actions amount to violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Massachusetts Antitrust Act and the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practice Act, Avangrid alleged.

“Both on its own and in conspiracy with others, NextEra engaged in a multifaceted, scorched-earth scheme to delay and even try to block NECEC altogether. NextEra’s actions have delayed Avangrid from offering clean, lower cost electricity through ISO New England’s wholesale electricity marketplaces. …

“This conduct included overt acts that constitute monopolization, attempted monopolization, civil conspiracy, intentional interference with contract, sham petitioning, dark-money deception, and false and misleading statements.”

NextEra did not respond to repeated requests for comment in time for publication. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office also did not respond.