NECEC outages spark dueling lawsuits with Hydro-Quebec

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes · Last updated: 11 September 2026

NECEC outages prompted dueling federal lawsuits after New England’s new Canada-to-Massachusetts transmission line failed during periods of peak winter demand. Eversource, National Grid and Unitil say Hydro‑Quebec stopped deliveries and forced them to spend an extra $40 million on higher-cost generation; Hydro‑Quebec counters that the utilities owe it $50 million for power supplied in January and February. As first reported by CommonWealth Beacon, both complaints were filed this week in federal court in Boston and turn on whether the curtailments were a contract breach or a force majeure. The dispute raises immediate questions about the reliability of the New England Clean Energy Connect and the region’s ability to replace fossil-fired capacity with imported hydropower.

Hydro-Quebec is facing steep penalties for each day they are not providing power to Massachusetts, and we know they are working to resume power as quickly as possible.

Maria Hardiman, spokesperson, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

How the outages unfolded and why they matter

The New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) began delivering power earlier this year and then experienced multiple pauses during high-demand periods. For all or parts of 12 days in late January and early February the line “went dark,” according to the utilities’ filing, and later in May and June the project was offline for about two weeks during an early-season heat wave. Those interruptions coincided with a regional spike in gas prices and a temporary return to heavier oil-fired generation, increasing costs and emissions as New England’s system strained.

The utilities contend the outages were imposed in a manner they describe as “discriminatory, discretionary, and non-transparent,” and that Hydro‑Quebec will “continue interrupting service” unless the court intervenes. Hydro‑Quebec says emergency reliability curtailments issued by its grid operator during extreme cold—and deaths and outages in Montreal tied to those weather events—meet the legal standard for force majeure, which it argues excuses nonperformance under the power contract.

What each court filing says and the sums at stake

The utilities’ complaint alleges that Hydro‑Quebec stopped sending power “in flagrant violation” of its contract, creating a 12-day shortfall and driving roughly $40 million in additional procurement costs for the utilities. Hydro‑Quebec’s response, filed the same day, asserts the utilities “have refused to pay” about $50 million for energy the company provided in January and February, and it frames the winter curtailments as force majeure. Both suits ask a federal judge to resolve breach and unpaid-bill claims and to decide who bears the financial fallout.

Those dollar figures—$40 million claimed by the utilities and $50 million sought by Hydro‑Quebec—represent the immediate financial stakes, but the litigation also threatens the long-term value of a project that required a 20-year power purchase agreement and a contentious approval process that included a $1 billion, 145-mile transmission corridor through Maine.

NECEC’s history: approvals, opposition and technical risk

NECEC’s path to operation was contested at multiple turns. Massachusetts regulators approved a 20-year power purchase agreement in 2018, and developers prevailed in a Maine court after a ballot measure sought to halt the $1 billion corridor. The line was designed to deliver up to the amount Central Maine Power — the project's developer — said would supply roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity, creating a sizeable reliance on an international supplier and on a single long transmission path.

That dependence exposes the region to operational disruptions that are not purely local. When Quebec’s system issued emergency reliability curtailments during extreme cold—events that also caused power outages for more than 15,000 households in Montreal and led to two deaths—NECEC deliveries were affected. The contract’s force majeure language is now central: if the court accepts Hydro‑Quebec’s position, the company may be excused for some interruptions; if not, Hydro‑Quebec could face contractual penalties.

Policy and market implications for New England’s energy mix

The cases come as policymakers and utilities weigh how to meet emissions targets while keeping electricity affordable. Gov. Maura Healey hailed the line’s launch as a milestone in an “all-of-the-above” strategy, pointing to lower rates for ratepayers, but the litigation and repeated outages underscore the fragility of relying on a single, import-dependent source to displace gas and oil generation. The litigation also arrives amid federal and trade tensions with Canada that could complicate diplomatic or regulatory remedies.

For project developers and state regulators, the dispute highlights two levers: contract design and operational transparency. Longer-term planning depends on clear allocation of curtailment risk, routine public reporting when deliveries pause, and technical fixes where outages are attributed to equipment or grid-management issues rather than uncontrollable system emergencies.

How the case could resolve and what would drive each outcome

The bottom line

The dueling suits over NECEC turn a technical and operational dispute into a legal test of who bears shortage risk in long-term cross-border energy contracts. The utilities point to a roughly $40 million hit in replacement purchases; Hydro‑Quebec counters with a $50 million billing claim and invokes force majeure tied to extreme weather. A court decision or a negotiated settlement will determine whether NECEC remains a cornerstone of Massachusetts’ decarbonisation plan or becomes an example of the limits of relying on a single international supply route.

What to watch

• Watch for the US District Court in Boston to schedule initial hearings; no date has been set.
• Watch whether the parties file a settlement notice or request for mediation; no date has been set.