How Eversource arrived at storm unprepared

Eversource executives could see Tropical Storm Isaias barreling toward Connecticut, and they apparently had a pretty good idea of what it would look like when it got here, even as it changed course just before it hit.

But the storm weather experts knew was coming — the one that would rip down trees and power lines with heavy winds and cause outages for 60 percent of the company’s customer base — was nothing like the storm Eversource prepared for.

That’s part of a big picture of the calamity that has regulators, elected officials and customers scratching their heads.

In the weather forecast, the mystery is not how Eversource botched a forecast that others nailed correctly. It’s how the regional utility, dominant in three states, likely had the right reports and still stood by a worst-case scenario of less than half the 800,000 customer outages that happened after the storm hit on Tuesday afternoon.

“The meteorological models were saying one thing and Eversource prepared for something totally different,”

said Marissa P. Gillett, chairwoman of the state Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, known as PURA. “Were they looking at something completely different? Making a judgment call? I really don’t know what they did.”

Even as more than 1,000 power restoration crews crisscross the state, the reasons are starting to come clear why Eversource — a company that’s been previously reprimanded for poor storm response and invested hundreds of billions of ratepayer dollars in improvements — ended up flatfooted when the storm passed the western edge of Connecticut Tuesday afternoon.

Other factors include a changing industry that employs fewer full-time workers and relies more on contractors; a changing climate that causes more extreme weather events; poor communication during and after the storm; and, at the end of the day, the financial cost of preparedness.

“It’s all about money. That’s what drives it,” said Lonnie Reed, who was co-chairwoman of the General Assembly’s Energy and Technology committee the last time Eversource ended up on hot water over a fumbled storm response.

The company, for its part, has not conceded it was caught unprepared. Executives maintain Isaias was a harsh storm that hit Connecticut where the state is most vulnerable: Large, old trees hanging over power lines.

The models changed

On Friday, July 31, with storm Isaias still well off the Florida coast, Eversource filed its prestaging prediction — estimating outages of 125,000 to 380,000. That was in line with meteorological reports at the time.

But the company never updated its report after the models shifted and showed outages could surpass 625,000.

Eversource claims the storm deviated from the predictive models it received from the Eversource Energy Center at the University of Connecticut and outside weather services, and blamed the unpredictability of weather for underestimating the number of outages that would occur from the storm.

“All storms are different and they often can change in size, strength and direction,” said company spokesman Mitch Gross. “We plan accordingly and adjust restoration plans as needed.”

Timing was also a factor — as the company had to file its plan well in advance.

“State regulators require that we file prior to securing any outside

storm restoration resources. We filed on that Friday, July 31 or risked losing these crews to another utility,” Gross said. “These resources are among the hundreds of line workers still hard at work helping restore power to our customers.”

Gillett said PURA never heard from the company again until after the storm hit and no attempt was made to update the pre-staging report once predictive models shifted on Sunday and Monday.

The state’s other major power company, United Illuminating, by contrast, was spot on its predicted outages, and filed its prestaging report on Monday, August 3, one day before the storm hit.

While many storms are hard to predict, especially at the tail end of their path, Bill Jacquemin, meteorologist at the Connecticut Weather Center at Western Connecticut State University in Danbury, said Isaias was easy. By late in the weekend, meteorologists the storm was on a path to leave Connecticut on the eastern edge, where winds are strongest and tornadoes can develop.

Jacquemin said with few springtime storms, a dry summer and the air full of particles from the trade winds enabling more condensation, serious tree damage in this storm was predictable.

Eversource, apparently, disagrees.

“Until it hit,” said Craig Hallstrom, Eversource president of regional electric operations, “I would suggest nobody knew what was going to happen.”

A familiar pattern

Reed, who led the legislature’s energy committee in 2011 and 2012, when the state was hit by three devastating storms, has seen this pattern before. An she has watched the dramatic changes in the power industry.

It has become common practice across the energy industry, not just at Eversource, to downsize the full-time workforce. That means fewer people on the ground, when the weather is good and the wind is slow, observing trees that might fall in heavy winds or power poles that might need to be reinforced.

So, even though Eversource undertook substantial “vegetation management” in response to the outages caused by Hurricane Irene in 2011 (downgraded to a tropical storm as it hit Connecticut), the freakish October snowstorm that year, and superstorm Sandy in 2012, the ongoing work to prevent outages isn’t what it used to be, some people say.

The old Northeast Utilities, which owned Connecticut Light & Power, is now Eversource after a merger soon after the three big storms.

“These companies now are

very corporate,” Reed said. “A lot of people making decisions are not former linemen. They’re not out there and having experienced this stuff in real ways.”

To top it off, Reed said energy companies have added a step to their storm response as a result of relying heavily on contractors rather than full-time employees. Now, rather than employing regional linemen who know their areas well and can respond quickly in the event of an outage, contractors must first analyze and survey an area prior to making a recommendation for repairs.

That added step takes time, and when the outages are so widespread, that could mean it takes extra days — not hours — to turn the power back on.

“It’s literally a perfect storm, especially given climate change where there are more of these bizarre climate events and the power companies changing the way they operate,” Reed said, adding, “It’s a new utility model and it’s not just Connecticut. It’s lots of companies around the country. Companies are downsizing the people out in the field and upsizing the numbers of consumers, really creating an equation that is really is going to spell problems when you have emergencies.”

Inquiries of those three storms led to investments of more than $300 million in ratepayer dollars to gird the system, largely through more aggressive tree work and protecting equipment from flooding — which was not a significant factor in Isaias.

But personnel is still an issue. A study published in February of this year by PURA, the state regulatory agency, also noted the fine line Eversource toed in balancing the number of full time employees with contractors.

Historically the power companies have relied on mutual aid to respond to extreme weather events, but in recent years, the companies have also used mutual aid resources for storms that did not reach the emergency threshold — an event in which 10 percent of any utility’s customers are without service for more than 48 hours.

“It is therefore a reasonable concern that such a heavy reliance on regional affiliates, local contractors ... may place a constraint on the available line resources for an [electric utility company] during an extreme regional outage event, thus impeding restoration activities and extending restoration times,” regulators wrote.

In response to criticism this week about the company’s heacy reliance on outside help, Hallstrom said, “You can’t hire thousands and thousands of crews based on [the idea] you just want to be prepared. Economically, financially that doesn’t make any sense.”

Poor communication

On Thursday, as more than 500,000 people were still without power nearly 48 hours after the storm made landfall in Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont’s chief of staff, Paul Mounds, said state crews were still waiting for communication from Eversource about how to proceed.

“It was reflected both by the governor and the agencies, the importance for Eversource to coordinate thoroughly with us and our emergency management teams and the municipalities and their departments of public works so they can make sure that its passable and its safe out there,” Mounds said.

After the 2011 and 2012 storms, Eversource added community liaisons to communicate with municipal leaders in the event of a major outage.

But once the storm ended Tuesday, communities and state agencies alike reported they heard little from the company through its liaisons. It’s not that the liaisons were unavailable; they just didn’t have information.

Even as executives met with Lamont, local leaders were left in the dark while they waited for crews to arrive and begin assessing downed lines — known as the “Make Safe” protocols — so that public works crews could clear roadways. Making matters worse, the company’s outage reporting system crashed at the height of the storm.

City and town leaders aired those grievances in a conference call late Thursday with Eversource and United Illuminating executives, arranged by Lamont. But it would be another day before Eversource declared it would hav the vast majority of customers back by Tuesday — a week after the storm.

The PURA study completed earlier this year also raised concerns about the company’s ability to communicate in the event of a major weather event, and noted that in Eversource had previously had technical difficulties with its IT-based self-service reporting system during an October 30, 2017 storm.

“In performing this study, the Authority has identified additional areas concerning the Companies’ emergency response plans and procedures necessitating further review, and possible updating,” regulators wrote. “Specifically, the restoration management priorities, including the Make Safe protocol, and communications with state and local officials are two key areas to be revisited.”