Northeast Utilities’ Five-Year Infrastructure Investment Plan Wall Street Access January 10, 2008

1. Northeast Utilities’ Five-Year Infrastructure Investment Plan Wall Street Access January 10, 2008 Lee Olivier, Executive Vice President – Operations

2. Safe Harbor Provisions This presentation contains statements concerning NU’s expectations, plans, objectives, future financial performance and other statements that are not historical facts. These statements are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In some cases, a listener can identify these forward-looking statements by words such as “estimate,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe,” “forecast,” “should,” “could,” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results or outcomes to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those included in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, actions or inactions by local, state and federal regulatory bodies; competition and industry restructuring; changes in economic conditions; changes in weather patterns; changes in laws, regulations or regulatory policy; changes in levels or timing of capital expenditures; developments in legal or public policy doctrines; technological developments; changes in accounting standards and financial reporting regulations; fluctuations in the value of our remaining competitive electricity positions; actions of rating agencies; subsequent recognition, derecognition and measurement of tax positions; and other presently unknown or unforeseen factors. Other risk factors are detailed from time to time in our reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any forward looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and we undertake no obligation to update the information contained in any forward-looking statements to reflect developments or circumstances occurring after the statement is made.

3. Today’s Discussion Topics • Key Initiatives • Regulated Investment Strategy • Transmission • New England’s Future Energy Challenges and Opportunities for NU • Generation • Distribution Rate Cases • Regulatory Updates • Emerging Challenges of Distribution Reliability

4. Strong Execution of 2007 Strategy & Business Plan • Completed capital spend of $1.3 billion • All major infrastructure projects on schedule and on budget • Yankee Gas LNG facility in service and in rates • Achieved PSNH and Yankee Gas rate settlements • Successful completion of NERC compliance audit • Consolidated system reliability target met • Advancing future initiatives • Northern New England, Canada transmission concept projects • Connecticut: Automated Meter Infrastructure; Integrated Resource Plan; Peaking Generation Proposal • Major projects delivering significant value for customers

5. Key Signposts For Our Continued Success • Continue to successfully execute • Effectively deploy the capital in the five-year plan • Manage the regulatory business model to earn on the capital • Develop and deliver solutions for the region’s energy challenges • Identify projects that have reliability, environmental and cost benefits for customers

6. Transmission

7. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Transmission Capital Program and Rate Base Continue to Grow Fall 2005 EEI Conference Five-Year Capital Program -- $2.3 Billion Fall 2006 EEI Conference Five-Year Capital Program -- $2.4 Billion Five-Year Capital Program -- $3.0 Billion Today (Projected) (Actual) (Actual) Annual Plant-in-Service: $ Millions $391 $307 $724 $883 $341 $396 $617

8. Rate Base Composition Electricity Transmission Rate Base: $1.05 billion (Actual 2006) ’07-’12 Capex: $3.8 billion 2006 Rate Base Composition $4.5 billion Electricity Distribution & Generation Rate Base: $2.9 billion (Actual 2006) ’07-’12 Capex: $3.0 billion 2012E Rate Base Composition $9.4 billion Gas LDC Rate Base: $0.5 billion (Actual 2006) ’07-’12 Capex: $0.4 billion Transmission becomes much larger share of total rate base

9. 2008-2012 Transmission Capital Expenditures Increase By Over 20% From Previous Five-Year Program Historic Forecast $1,816 Million Up To $3.0 Billion $1.1 billion of additional forecasted projects Successful completion of SWCT projects Springfield 115-kV Cables project ramping up $560 million of major SWCT projects in 2008-2012 forecast period; $1.68 billion in total Springfield 115-kV Cables projects estimated at $350 million during the 2008-2012 forecast period In Millions NEEWS projects ramping up NEEWS projects estimated at $1 billion during the 2008-2012 forecast period

10. Four Major Southwest Connecticut Transmission Projects – A $1.68 Billion Investment, About 2/3 Complete COMPLETE Bethel-Norwalk 345-kV underground & overhead $350 Million • 21 miles 345-kV (56% underground) • 10 miles 115-kV (100% underground) • Completed October 2006 at a cost of $335 million 50% of CT Load Middletown-Norwalk 345-kV underground & overhead $1,047 Million (NU share) Glenbrook Cables 115-kV underground $223 Million Long Island Cable 138-kV cross-sound $72 Million (NU share) • 69 miles 345-kV (35% underground) • 57 miles 115-kV (1% underground) • Joint project with United Illuminating • Projected in-service date: Second-half 2009 • 62% complete at 1/04/08 • 9 miles 115-kV underground • Projected in-service date: December 2008 • Under contract – construction under way, 69% complete at 1/04/08 • 11 miles 138-kV submarine cable • Joint project with LIPA • Projected in-service date: mid-2008 • 63% complete at 1/04/08

11. NEEWS and Springfield 115-kV Cables Projects Will Better Connect Eastern, Western New England by 2013 Springfield 115-kV Cables Project Greater Springfield Reliability Project SPRINGFIELD Interstate Reliability Project HARTFORD Central Connecticut Reliability Project 345-kV Substation Generation Station 345-kV ROW 115-kV ROW

12. Springfield 115-kV Cables & NEEWS Project Schedules

13. PSNH WMECO CL&P $'s Millions $'s Millions $'s Millions 115-kV Reliability Program 25.0 115-kV Reliability Program 15.0 115-kV Reliability Program 30.0 Fiber Optic Communications 15.0 Fiber Optic Communications 10.0 Fiber Optic Communications 20.0 Scobie 3rd Autotransformer 12.4 Ludlow Transformer Repl. 12.0 310/368 Line Split 29.0 White Mountain Region Upgrades 14.9 Berkshire 2nd Autotransformer 9.9 Eastern Connecticut Reliability 190.5 Monadnock Region Upgrades 26.6 Barbour Hill Autotransformer 10.7 Aging Equipment & NERC Compliance Upgrades (100% Nashua Area Solution 14.0 Aging Equipment & NERC in RSP) 64.5 Compliance Upgrades (24% in Deerfield & Gosling Autos 52.7 RSP) 91.4 Numerous Projects Addressing Maintenance, Reliability & Aging Equipment & NERC Numerous Projects Addressing Load Growth (46% in RSP) Compliance Upgrades (64% in 23.5 Maintenance, Reliability & RSP) 163.8 Total WMECO Other Projects 134.9 Load Growth (55% in RSP) 202.9 Numerous Projects Addressing Total CL&P Other Projects 574.5 Maintenance, Reliability & Load Growth (42% in RSP) 76.9 Total PSNH Other Projects 401.3 Other Forecast Projects Total $1.1 Billion $1.1 Billion

14. Future Resources Aligned with Our Strategic Business Plans • Construction Expertise – experienced, proven firms, track record with NU • Burns & McDonnell (Transmission, including NEEWS) • Washington Group International (Merrimack Scrubber) • Labor – partnering with the largest U.S. transmission constructor • Contract signed with Quanta for $750 million in transmission construction services • Provides for 70% of labor over the next six years • Material – established worldwide network to procure key components • Transformers, poles, underground cables and control systems

15. Established Worldwide Access to Key Suppliers GC Scada Cabinet from GE Harris in Canada M-N Overhead Ground Wire from Intral in Canada GC Cable from Prysmian in Finland M-N GIS from Mitsubishi in Japan GC DFR from Qualitrol in Ireland M-N Shunt Reactors from Siemens in Germany M-N 115-kV Cable from Prysmian in Italy GC Breakers & Switches from ABB Power in U.S. M-N 345-kV Breakers from HICO in South Korea M-N 345-kV Cable from Silec in France M-N Steel Poles from Thomas & Betts in U.S. B-N Underground Cables from VISCAS in Japan M-N Autotransformers & Transformers from Areva in Brazil

16. New England’s Future Energy Challenges and Opportunities for NU

17. Next Initiatives: Dealing With New England’s Emerging Energy Challenges Dependence on natural gas Challenges and Opportunities Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) requirements High electricity costs Increasing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)

18. By 2020, a 17,000 GWh Gap Exists Between Existing Renewable Resources And The Amount Required To Meet The RPS VT: 2005-2012 Load growth to be met with renewables and capped at 10%. ME: 40% by 2017 (currently 30%) 2020 17,269 GWh NH: 23.8% by 2025 MA: 4% in 2009; 1% annual increments thereafter CT: 27% by 2020 RI: 16% by 2019 Magnitude of meeting this challenge • 2,500 MW of biomass (~$12 billion), or • 6,600 MW of wind (~$8 billion), or • 16,400 MW of solar (~$128 billion)

19. Meeting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Requirements Will Be A Challenge Projected 10 State CO2 Emissions (Source: Environment Northeast Business as Usual Scenario) 10 State RGGI Cap Projected CO2 Gaps: 10 State – 32 Million Tons New England – 18 Million Tons Projected New England CO2 Emissions @ 1.3% energy growth New England RGGI Budget Magnitude of meeting this challenge for New England • 31,400 GWh fossil generation replaced with low/no emissions resources • Equivalent to 4,500 MW of baseload generation (80% capacity factor)

20. Northern New England and Eastern Canada Will Become Valuable Sources to Meet New England’s Needs Eastern Canadian Development New England’s Most Attractive Renewable Energy Locations Newfoundland & Labrador Exploring development of large Hydro facilities H H B Quebec Hydro Quebec plans $20 Billion investment in Hydro and export transmission W B W H W B W W B Biomass B New Brunswick Exploring development of 1 or 2 nuclear units Hydro H N Nuclear W N Wind W General Movement Of Power

21. A Set of Complementary Projects with Tangible Benefits for New England Benefits • A solution with real benefits for the region • Economic value • CO2 reduction • Renewable resource additions • Fuel diversity • HVDC tie line with Hydro Quebec allows for large import capability into New England • Optimizes use of existing and planned bulk power grid -- connects the DC tie line from Hydro Quebec at a good location on the New England AC system • Provides a new, strong and separate reliability path from HQ • Addition of north-south DC connection allows for enhanced power flows to southern New England load centers HVDC Line from Hydro Quebec to central NH Utilizes likely 345 kV upgrades in NH and VT to meet future reliability needs (in RSP today). HVDC Line Newington, NH to Boston Area

22. Regulated Generation & Distribution

23. Regulated Generation Investments -- Merrimack Scrubber • Merrimack Scrubber • Required by New Hampshire statute for mercury emissions reductions • Estimated to cost $250 million • Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) contract secured with Washington Group International in fall 2007 • Construction start: 2009 • Project completion: 2013 • Reduces 98% of sulfur emissions • Reduces 85% of mercury emissions • Avoids $15-20 million annually in sulfur credit purchases • Impact on Merrimack production costs of no more than 0.6 cents/kWh, preserving PSNH’s low-cost generation fleet • Investment recovered through PSNH generation rates

24. Peak Load Growth & New Business Support – 44% • Basic Business Requirements - 31% • Plant Relocations • Equipment Failures • Information Technology • Other Capital • Aging Infrastructure - 25% • Regulatory Commitments • Reliability/Obsolescence • Facility Upgrades NU Distribution Infrastructure Investments • 2008 – 2012 investment • Invest $2.5 billion in distribution capital spending • CL&P: $1.5 billion • PSNH: $525 million • WMECO: $175 million • Yankee Gas: $300 million

25. Regulated Distribution Investments -- LNG Facility • LNG Facility • Yankee Gas’s 1.2 Bcf liquid natural gas production facility in Waterbury, CT • $108 million cost • Completed in time for the 2007-2008 heating season • Enhances reliability and insulates customers from price volatility • Lowers customer costs by $25 million a year

26. Completed Distribution Rate Cases

27. CL&P Distribution Rate Case

28. Regulated Generation, Distribution and Transmission Projects Provide Savings for Customers • Regulated generation and distribution projects provide benefits in the form of increased reliability and reduced energy costs for customers • Northern Wood Power Project is dispatching power below market and 100% of our renewable energy certificates are sold for 2007 • New Hampshire-owned utility generation has resulted in the lowest energy costs for customers in New England – 7.83 cents per kWh – 33% lower than current market • Yankee Gas LNG facility is complete and will lower costs to customers by $25 million a year • Transmission projects provide benefits in the form of increased reliability and reduced congestion and capacity market costs • Bethel-Norwalk has reduced Connecticut congestion costs by more than $150 million since October 2006 • Middletown-Norwalk is expected to provide $20 - $30 million in avoided costs • NEEWS projects are expected to provide additional savings of at least $200 million per year in reduced congestion and capacity costs

29. Emerging Challenges of Distribution Reliability Dana Louth, CL&P Vice President – Energy Delivery

30. NU’s Distribution Business Highlighted area reflects service territory 1 000 omitted

31. Projected Distribution and Generation Capital Expenditures $652 $593 $566 $536 $536 $503 $ Millions Total capital investments made in 2008-2012 will grow asset base by 39% after depreciation *PSNH Generation = $36 million in 2007; $63 million in 2008; $44 million in 2009; $51 million in 2010; $66 million in 2011; and $142 million in 2012

32. Peak Load Growth & New Business - 39% • Basic Business Requirements - 21% • Plant Relocations • Information Technology • Other Capital • Aging Infrastructure - 40% • Equipment Failures • Reliability/Obsolescence • Regulatory Commitments CL&P Distribution Infrastructure Investments 2008 – 2012 investment • CL&P expects to invest $1.5 billion in distribution capital spending • Peak Load Growth & New Business = $570 million • Basic Business Requirements = $310 million • Aging Infrastructure = $585 million

33. Approximate Pole Plant Age Approximate Overhead Primary Conductor (ft) 350,000 18,000 307489 16,028 16,000 300,000 14,000 250,000 12,000 200,000 10,000 8,023 125834 150,000 8,000 112061 85406 4,567 6,000 100,000 61465 3,659 3,266 4,000 50,000 2,000 - - 0-10 11to 20 21-30 31-40 41+ 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41+ What is CL&P’s Aging Distribution Infrastructure? • Connecticut/New England saw much building/neighborhood development post-WWII • Significant amount of plant is 50+ years old • Average distribution plant age is 35 years Number of Poles Feet of Conductor (45%) (45%) (44%) (44%) (23%) (23%) (18%) (16%) (18%) (16%) (13%) (12%) (10%) (9%) (12%) (13%) (10%) (9%) (9%) (9%) # of S/S Approximate Age of Metal Enclosed Switchgear (41%) (35%) Plant that is relatively new (24%) Plant that is approaching the end of its useful life Plant that is beyond its useful life

34. Why Won’t Distribution Infrastructure Last Forever?

35. How Much Distribution Equipment is Approaching the End of its Useful Life? • 40% of distribution plant is over 40 years old • Full replacement value of old obsolete plant at CL&P would cost about $5.2 billion Asset TypeReplace Cost Overhead $3,829 Million Underground $1,003 Million Substation $ 330 Million TOTAL $5,162 Million $0.6 Billion $5.2 Billion Total investment required to address major equipment at or approaching end of life in 2007

36. What’s The Impact Of Aging Infrastructure On Reliability Provided To CL&P Customers? Major Factors Impact CL&P Distribution Reliability CL&P SAIDI - CTPUC Criteria SAIDI CL&P 2006 SAIDI (Non-Storm) was 132.63 minutes. Top three causes contributed 96.71 minutes System Average Interruption Index (SAIDI) measures the average number of minutes a typical customer is without power Reliability is generally degrading and…. equipment failure associated with aging infrastructure is a major cause of degrading reliability

37. While An Aging Infrastructure Can Cause Degrading Reliability, Our Customers Indicate They Will Not Accept Lower Reliability Levels • Distribution infrastructure improvements are needed to maintain reliable service “We are suffering from old infrastructure, where the lines and transformers are showing their age…That affects the power we get.” * • Today’s digital economy requires reliable power “Brown outs or spikes is a problem for mechanical devices. Close to not having any power when it’s not reliable.” * • Poor power quality adversely impacts our customers “We all agree that power is mission critical, got to have it to run your business no matter what it is.” * • Preventative maintenance is critical to equipment performance “Maintenance and uninterrupted service go hand-in-hand. You need the maintenance and the upkeep.” * But…. Our customers are concerned about high rates. “Nothing else we do has gone up as much.” * * Excerpts from Fall 2007 Customer Satisfaction Focus Group Study.

38. Challenges Associated with Aging Distribution Infrastructure • Identifying significant vulnerabilities through risk management initiatives • Prioritizing work • Executing upgrades • Rising cost of labor and materials – impact of world-wide demand on commodities • Attracting and retaining engineering and technical staff • Avoiding customer inconvenience during project construction • Cost of preventive maintenance programs • Rate impact of replacing depreciated equipment • Securing reasonable regulatory treatment to avoid rate lag

39. What is CL&P Doing to Address Distribution Infrastructure Challenges? • Formed asset management organization • Created new major projects organization • Five-year capital investment plan • Formed vendor/supplier alliances • Partnerships with colleges/universities to develop power engineers • Upgrading inspection and maintenance plans • Working on strategies to moderate rate impact

40. Summary • CL&P and other NU distribution companies have an aging delivery infrastructure • A comprehensive upgrade strategy is required • Risk management/prioritization • Capital and O&M allocation • Capital additions likely to rise from today’s level as is rate base • CL&P continues to work with regulators • Fair regulatory treatment is key