Updating stakeholders on its proposal for an internal asset condition reviewer, ISO-NE said it now plans to review asset condition projects estimated by transmission owners to exceed $25 million in regionalized costs.

ISO-NE initially proposed reviewing projects with costs greater than or equal to a $30-$50 million threshold. But the RTO has since adopted the New England States Committee on Electricity’s (NESCOE’s) proposal of a $25 million threshold.

“It is important that the majority of spending be subject to review to help ensure that the projects consumers are paying for are reasonable,” NESCOE wrote to ISO-NE on March 6.

ISO-NE said the $25 million threshold “allows for an extensive review of the region’s upcoming projects to address stakeholders’ concerns” and aligns with thresholds for review included in a 2025 law passed in Connecticut and a bill recently passed in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

It said it plans to periodically evaluate the threshold to evaluate the efficiency of the review process and effects of inflation and supply chain constraints.

Al McBride, vice president of system planning at ISO-NE, said the RTO plans for “periodic reviews of [transmission owner]-provided project forecasts to identify projects that should have been captured in the [asset condition] reviewer process or projects that may hit the threshold based on their documented scope.”

Some stakeholders expressed concern that transmission owners could try to avoid scrutiny from the reviewer by segmenting projects or estimating costs to fall just shy of the threshold.

Reactions to the proposal at the NEPOOL Transmission Committee meeting on March 18 were mixed. While some applauded the broader scope of review, others expressed concern it would subject the bulk of asset condition projects to review and create excessive work for the RTO.

Dave Burnham, director of transmission policy at Eversource Energy, said the company “fully supports” ISO-NE’s development of an asset condition reviewer but “recognizes it will be a significant effort for the ISO.”

“We had recommended an initial $50 million threshold for project reviews to help ensure that the process is effective and meaningful as soon as possible,” he said. “We understand that the ISO believes it can effectively implement a lower threshold of $25 million and look forward to working further with the ISO and stakeholders on the implementation of the process.”

ISO-NE originally proposed the creation of a first-of-its-kind asset condition reviewer role in mid-2025 to address concerns about escalating expenses associated with asset condition costs. It employed a consultant to conduct an interim review of a subset of projects and aims to establish the permanent role by the start of 2027.

In its current form, ISO-NE envisions the role to be strictly advisory, intended to provide scrutiny into project needs, cost effectiveness and asset management practices. The transmission owners would retain responsibility and legal liability for the maintenance of their infrastructure.

While the reviewer could not approve or block projects, its analysis could be used by states or consumer advocates to challenge project costs through FERC formula rate proceedings.

ISO-NE also plans to “identify inconsistencies and inefficiencies” between the asset management practices of transmission owners and promote standardization and the adoption of best practices.

McBride stressed the role “must maintain impartiality, provide technical competence, and build trust and credibility by sharing information clearly and completely.”

The asset condition reviewer would be a new department with full-time staff within ISO-NE’s system planning team. This structure would allow coordination with other planning efforts and enable right-sizing asset condition projects to more efficiently meet expected demand growth, McBride said.

ISO-NE plans to begin discussions on right-sizing once it has largely completed development of the reviewer role, likely in the third quarter of this year.

While the states initially advocated for an independent transmission monitor separate from ISO-NE, there appears to be some growing acceptance of ISO-NE’s proposed approach. But some stakeholders continue to express concerns about whether the reviewer would be adequately impartial.