ISO-NE responded to stakeholder feedback and provided more detail on its proposed asset condition reviewer role at the NEPOOL Transmission Committee meeting Jan. 21.

The reviewer role is intended to increase transparency and scrutiny into local transmission upgrades of existing assets. Asset condition costs have risen in recent years. According to the October update to the transmission owners’ asset condition database, the cost of asset condition projects placed in service since the start of 2020 totals about $4.67 billion. The transmission owners forecast an additional $1.97 billion to be added to this total by the end of 2026.

The growth in costs, coupled with concerns about a lack of regulatory oversight into the spending, has driven efforts to standardize asset condition procedures and increase public information and engagement.

As proposed, the ISO-NE asset condition reviewer would have limited authority — its findings would be advisory; it would not take over management or planning responsibilities from the transmission owners; and it would not make legal determinations on the prudency of investments. However, the reviewer would provide information on asset condition projects (ACPs) and practices that third parties could use to challenge the prudency of projects.

“The new function is envisioned to provide an independent review and opinion of ACPs” and help the states and the public better understand “the technical merits of proposed projects,” said Al McBride, vice president of system planning at ISO-NE.

The RTO aims to establish the role by January 2027, subject to FERC approval of the budget and governing documents. It plans to hire dedicated staff with technical expertise to review projects, McBride said.

In October, ISO-NE asked for feedback on the role’s objectives, governance structure, criteria for project review, stakeholder engagement, ties to holistic system planning and outputs.

McBride said the feedback ISO-NE received emphasized the need for technical expertise, credibility and strong scrutiny of proposed projects.

“Respondents generally agree that the [asset condition] reviewer should produce clear, detailed reports that evaluate alternatives, technical needs and cost-effectiveness, and that these reports must be transparent, well-documented and completed before construction begins,” he said.

In comments submitted in December, the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE) wrote, “It is imperative that the review ultimately provide information of sufficient detail to enable states, consumer advocates and others to rely upon it to challenge or support the asserted need, the project option selected and/or costs, as needed.”

McBride noted that the RTO received a range of feedback on the governance structure, with some stakeholders advocating for the creation of a new department within in ISO-NE System Planning “to better achieve efficiency and build towards the objectives of more holistic outcomes, such as right-sizing,” while other commenters pushed for a standalone department “to better ensure impartial oversight.”

After accounting for the feedback, ISO-NE proposes to create a new department in system planning. McBride said this would help avoid “duplication of expertise” and would enable “future coordination with other planning activities, such as right-sizing.”

As proposed, the role would regularly report to the ISO-NE Planning Advisory Committee on transmission owner asset management practices and would review individual projects with an estimated cost of “greater than or equal to $30 million to $50 million on an individual line or at a single station/substation over a period of five years or less.”

The reviewer would look to identify inconsistencies between the asset management practices of transmission owners and look for opportunities for standardization.

For individual project reviews, ISO-NE would evaluate whether the transmission owner justified the project need and adequately evaluated project alternatives. The RTO would also give an opinion on the transmission owner’s preferred solution.

Projects would not be allowed to begin construction until the review is complete. Material modifications to a project or a change in the preferred solution would trigger reevaluation by the reviewer.

To establish the role, ISO-NE plans to add a new attachment to the Transmission Operating Agreement to “establish requirements for information provision, standardization and reporting.” It is targeting a technical committee vote in June on its proposal.

McBride said ISO-NE plans to discuss the “development of a right-sizing capability” after the asset condition reviewer design is largely complete, likely in the third quarter of 2026. Consumer advocates in the region have expressed a strong interest in developing a right-sizing process to prevent duplicative transmission projects and identify the potential for long-term cost savings. NESCOE wrote in its comments that establishing an asset condition reviewer should add confidence to future right-sizing discussions.

Surplus Interconnection Service

Also at the Transmission Committee meeting, ISO-NE kicked off discussions on surplus interconnection service. The RTO included the topic in its 2026 work plan at the urging of several stakeholders. It plans to analyze the current rules to evaluate stakeholder concerns and “the need for and scope of potential solutions.” (See ISO-NE Publishes Draft 2026 Work Plan and Stakeholder Forum: Surplus Interconnection Can Maximize Capacity in ISO-NE.)

Alex Rost, director of transmission services at ISO-NE, noted that the RTO implemented its existing surplus interconnection service (SIS) rules in 2019 in response to FERC Order 845. He said the SIS process is intended to allow interconnection customers “to take advantage of unused capability through the use of surplus interconnection service at existing points of interconnection.”

Surplus customers are not required to go through the ISO-NE interconnection process, which is part of the reason the topic has drawn interest from stakeholders. However, surplus customers still may need to undergo studies “if the performance characteristics of the new generating facilities are materially different from the existing generating facilities,” Rost said.

He emphasized that surplus customers are subordinate to the original interconnection customer. If the original customer retires, the surplus customer would lose access to the surplus service. This constraint is part of the reason there is only one instance of a surplus interconnection agreement in the region, he said.

He asked for written feedback by Feb. 6 on any “outcomes stakeholders are ultimately looking for related to this review … and any use cases they can provide.”