Litigation Updates & Reports

The FERC found the Tariff unjust and unreasonable due to its lack of a Correction Mechanism.  Accordingly, it directed ISO-NE to submit, on or before Jan 8, 2027, a compliance filing with changes proposed in ISO-NE’s Response.  Agreeing with ISO-NE’s response regarding the complexities and drawbacks related to correcting Capacity Performance Payment Errors, the FERC found the Tariff “just and reasonable as it relates to the settlement of Capacity Performance Payments,” so no further action is required on this issue.  Finally, the FERC declined to provide the requested guidance with respect to a possible Settlement Deadline Extension, instead encouraging ISO-NE to “submit whatever section 205 filing it believes is appropriate” for future FERC evaluation.

Comments supporting ACR Role revisions submitted by: AEU; Consumer Advocates(1); EDF/CLF; Maine OPA; NESCOE, Public Systems(2)

     (1) “Consumer Advocates” are: NH OCA, MA AG, CT OCC, RI DPUC.
     (2) “Public Systems” are: MMWEC, CMEEC, NHEC, VPPSA.

The following parties opposed NETOs’ requested 1-month extension of time for reply briefs: Consumer Advocates (1); MMWEC/NHEC; NESCOE; NECOS(2)/ENE; MA DPU.

(1) “Consumer Advocates” are: MA AGO; CT OCC; ME OPA; NH OCA; and RI DPUC.
(2) NECOS are: Belmont; Block Island; Braintree; Chicopee; Clear River Electric & Water; Concord; Georgetown; Groveland; Hingham; Holden; Hudson; Littleton (MA); Merrimac; Middleborough; Middleton; North Attleborough; Norwood; Reading; Rowley; Taunton; Wallingford; Wellesley; and Westfield.