Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- ferc_complaint_el25-44 [2025/06/30 03:35] – sigridundset
+++ ferc_complaint_el25-44 [2025/06/30 03:49] (current) – sigridundset
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== FERC Complaint EL25-44 ======
+[[https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/docketsheet?docket_number=el25-44&sub_docket=all&dt_from=1960-01-01&dt_to=2025-03-21&chklegadata=false&pagenm=dsearch&date_range=custom&search_type=docket&date_type=filed_date&sub_docket_q=allsub| FERC docket]]
+{{ ::ferc:20241219-5368_consumer_100_kv_complaint_final_12.19.pdf |2024, December 19: Complaint; "The Transmission Owners Are Thwarting Regional Planning Through Self-Planned Transmission."}}
 {{ :ferc:nescoe-response-to-iso-ne-motion-to-dismiss-and-answer-el25-44-000.pdf |2025, April 24: NESCOE response to ISO-NE motion to dismiss}}
@@ Line 7: / Line 11: @@
 {{ :ferc:20250320-5107_fea_transmission_complaint_comments_el25-44-000_03.20.25.pdf |2025, March 25: FEA Transmission complaint and comments}}
-{{ :ferc:nescoe-comments-el25-44-000.pdf |2025, March 20: NESCOE comments; "As described
+{{ :ferc:nescoe-comments-el25-44-000.pdf |2025, March 20: NESCOE comments; ""Complainants identify a valid and persistent issue: the lack of meaningful review of asset condition1 projects. As noted by the Complainants, this issue is pervasive in New England, where asset condition projects are solely within the transmission providers discretion...""...recently proposed projects such as the X-178 Line Rebuild and the HPFF cable replacement project in Boston should be subject to a regional planning process. These projects,
-supra in § III.B, recently proposed projects such as the X-178 Line Rebuild and the HPFF cable
+unlike an emergency asset replacement, result in extremely significant investments that can impact the regional planning process and could be regionally planned without putting reliability
-replacement project in Boston should be subject to a regional planning process. These projects,
-unlike an emergency asset replacement,81 result in extremely significant investments that can
-impact the regional planning process and could be regionally planned without putting reliability
 at risk."}}
@@ Line 18: / Line 19: @@
 {{ :ferc:20250320-5183_2025_03_20_-_iso-ne_-_mtd_and_answer_final.pdf |2025, March 20: ISO-NE Motion to Dismiss and answer}}
-{{ :ferc:20250320-5164_pio_comments_regarding_el25-44-000.pdf |2025, March 20: PIO Comments}}
+{{ :ferc:20250320-5164_pio_comments_regarding_el25-44-000.pdf |2025, March 20: Public Interest Organizations  Comments; "While Eversource provided several presentations regarding Line X-178,
+stakeholders noted issues with a lack of compelling evidence to support the scope of the project (complete rebuild) and lack of responsiveness to stakeholder comments and
+questions"}}
-{{ :ferc:20250320-5163_el25-44_-_neto_mtd_and_answer_03.20.2025_final_.pdf |..."2023, March 20: New England Transmission Owners motion to dismiss and answer}}
+{{ :ferc:20250320-5163_el25-44_-_neto_mtd_and_answer_03.20.2025_final_.pdf |2023, March 20: New England Transmission Owners motion to dismiss and answer}}
 {{ :ferc:el25-44_maine_puc.pdf |2025, March 18: Maine PUC comments; "While Eversource provided several presentations regarding Line X-178, stakeholders noted issues with a lack of compelling evidence to support the scope of the project (complete rebuild) and lack of responsiveness to stakeholder comments and
@@ Line 27: / Line 30: @@
 {{ :ferc:e_petition_to_intevene_el25-44.pdf |2025, March 18: Eversource Petition to intervene}}
-{{ :ferc:20250318-5062_mpuc_notice_of_intervention_and_protest_el25-44.pdf |2025, March 18: Maine PUC Notice of Intervention and Protest}}
+{{ :ferc:20250318-5062_mpuc_notice_of_intervention_and_protest_el25-44.pdf |2025, March 18: Maine PUC Notice of Intervention and Protest;"While Eversource provided several presentations regarding Line X-178,
+stakeholders noted issues with a lack of compelling evidence to support the scope of the
+project (complete rebuild) and lack of responsiveness to stakeholder comments and
+questions"
 {{ :ferc:20250319-5109_rmi_comments_on_ferc_docket_no._el25-44.pdf |2025, March 15: RMI Comments}}
-{{ ::ferc:20241219-5368_consumer_100_kv_complaint_final_12.19.pdf |2024, December 19: "Complainants identify a valid and persistent issue: the lack of meaningful review of asset condition1 projects. As noted by the Complainants, this issue is pervasive in New England, where asset condition projects are solely within the transmission providers discretion..."}}