The FERC rejected as unjust and unreasonable both the ISO-NE and  NEPOOL “Energy Security Improvements” or “ESI” proposals. Finding that ISO-NE failed to demonstrate that  ESI will materially improve fuel security, the FERC concluded that “ESI does not strike an appropriate balance  between addressing fuel security in New England while protecting consumers from the significant cost of  those fuel security benefits.” [P 55] And although the FERC noted that the NEPOOL Alternative would result  in lower costs to consumers than ISO-NE’s ESI proposal, they rejected the NEPOOL Alternative as unjust and  unreasonable because it contained the “same deficiencies that render ISO-NE’s proposal unjust and  unreasonable.” [P 56]  View Order here.