- Docket
- EL26-69-000
- Item
- E-12
- Reporter cite
- 195 FERC ¶ 61,216
- Region
- New York State
- Respondents
- NYISO + 9 named New York transmission owners
- Length
- 119 pages
Read the order PDF (committed copy) Official source on ferc.gov ↗
This proceeding is held in abeyance
On August 14, 2026 FERC granted the abeyance motion of NYISO, the New York Transmission Owners and the Non-Incumbent Transmission Owners (letter order 20260814-3068, 196 FERC ¶ 61,130). Responses to the show cause order are now due November 16, 2026, answers December 16, 2026. A respondent that instead makes an FPA section 205 filing by that date has its obligation to respond suspended, and the proceeding stays in abeyance pending further Commission direction.
Three motions from three groups, granted together. New York was the only region where the incumbent and non-incumbent transmission owners filed separately from each other and from the ISO.
What is unique to NYISO
NYISO is the tariff-gap case. It runs load interconnection for projects over 10 MW at ‘115 kV’ and above largely off-tariff: the study details, deposits, and assumptions sit in non-tariff documents, and its tariff ‘lacks a definition of large load’ as a category. With co-location reforms not expected until ‘2027,’ E-12 converts that off-tariff practice into show-cause issues: a 60-to-90-day study expectation, a new large-load definition with readiness requirements to deter speculation, and the only order’s express path to request a 90-day abeyance.
What FERC presses NYISO on
- How NYISO and its TOs will timely study transmission service — within 60–90 days of a request (P 44).
- Why a pro forma cost-recovery agreement is not necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates, or else propose one (P 89).
- A definition of ‘large load’ as a new category, with readiness requirements to deter speculative requests (P 64).
Quoted directives, with page cites
Each quotation below is verbatim from the committed order text and links to the page it appears on. A test asserts every one of them against the extracted source.
-
Timely study window P 44
“how NYISO and/or the Transmission Owners will timely study (i.e., within 60-90 days of receiving the request) the provision of transmission service … on behalf of large loads”
-
Define ‘large load’ P 64
“it lacks a definition of large load, as a new category of load”
-
Alternative transmission technologies P 68
“require the evaluation of alternative transmission technologies in transmission service request studies … in all instances”
-
Cost transparency P 73
“robust, accurate, and systematic provision of data on NYISO’s website in a single location … searchable and allows users to filter the data, regarding the cost for Network Upgrades”
-
Proximate-generation service P 121
“it lacks a generator interconnection study process and/or generator interconnection service to reflect an interconnection customer’s commitment … to limit the generating facility’s output”
Region-specific findings
NYISO has load-interconnection procedures for projects > 10 MW at 115 kV+ (or ≥ 80 MW below 115 kV), but the order finds them only partially in the Tariff: study details, deposits, and assumptions sit in non-Tariff documents. PP 32, 46, 64
“115 kV”
It has no tariff definition of ‘large load’ as a category; the order asks it to set one, plus readiness requirements to deter speculative requests. P 64
“lacks a definition of large load”
NYISO already defines ‘BTM:NG Resource’ and ‘Host Load,’ but its model presumes a firm Host Load that does not participate in wholesale markets; the new directives attach to those definitions. PP 36, 96-97
“BTM:NG Resource”
NYISO is weighing co-location reforms but doesn’t expect to file tariff revisions until 2027, which FERC cites as why the § 206 proceeding is needed now. PP 36-37
“2027”
Unlike SPP, NYISO is not told to adopt HILLGA, though its Tariff may still be unjust and unreasonable without a tailored study process for proximate / co-located generation. P 123
“serving electrically proximate large load or large co-located load”
What the public comment record says about NYISO
6 of the RM26-4 record's public comments name-check NYISO specifically (3 support · 0 oppose · 0 mixed · 3 neutral). That's a floor, not a full count: only about 40% of the corpus carries a region tag at all, so a comment that discusses NYISO without the audit pass catching a region-specific mention won't appear here.
-
National Grid Plc support
“A final rule should reflect this reality and be limited to truly large loads as defined on a region-by-region basis, which in most regions, including New York and New England, is likely to be at a higher MW threshold than 20 MW.” p. 3
-
New York Independent System Operator, Inc. neutral
“the current fleet of generating resources connected to the New York Control Area ("NYCA") is decreasing while insufficient generation with the necessary characteristics is entering service.” p. 7
-
New York State Public Service Commission support
“the NYSPSC has significant concerns with the scope of the Proposed ANOPR, which would intrude on matters reserved to the states under the Federal Power Act (FPA), namely service to end-use/retail customers.” p. 3
-
Utility Intervention Unit, New York State Department of Stat support
“Any new large load rules should be built upon NYISO's established interconnection processes, manuals, and datasets rather than overriding them.” p. 3
See all 6 comments about NYISO →
Section IV briefing questions
This order poses its briefing questions at page 78 of the committed PDF: open at § IV. The questions are templated across the six show cause orders; the full set, and what the public record says on each, is in the comment record.
Respondents named in the order
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation · Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · LS Power Grid New York Corporation I · New York State Electric & Gas Corporation · New York Transco LLC · NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. · Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. · Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. · Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation
The other dockets
E-7 PJM · E-8 MISO · E-9 SPP · E-10 CAISO · E-11 ISO-NE · E-2 PJM
Return to the full briefing: the timeline, the five reform categories, the procedural clock, and the 273-comment RM26-4 record.