Research documenting that there is no reason for the work proposed by Eversource. Courtesy of Sharon Weizenbaum of Shutesbury, MA
Eversource’s net profits more than doubled between 2024 and 2025, increasing from approximately $811.7 million to $1.69 billion.
At the same time, electricity costs for Eversource’s roughly 1.5 million electric customers in Massachusetts increased by about $120–$180 per year in 2025, which translates to roughly $180–$270 million more paid annually by Massachusetts electric customers alone (Not CT and NH, another 1.8 million electrical customers). (Eversource supplies natural gas and water utilities as well and these numbers do not include those profits.)
While not all of this increase becomes profit since utilities recover supply and infrastructure costs, it does reflect a substantial rise in revenue collected from customers during the same period that profits increased significantly.
Because outages cost Eversource a lot of money, it seems clear that a significant part of the rationale is to increase system resilience and reduce financial risk associated with outages for Eversource -- not for us. However, even significant outage events, while costly for Eversource, represent a relatively small fraction of overall company losses.
Regarding the specific 29.3-mile transmission line, we have not yet found any evidence or documentation of any major outages caused by tree fall along this corridor in the 50+ years it has operated. Transmission line outages are generally documented, so if there have been any, they have been minor.
If the number is zero or a small number of minor issues, what level of risk justifies this scale of forest removal?
At the April 14, 2026 community meeting, examples of outages were cited, but these did not appear to be specific to this line.