{"document":{"slug":"order-el26-72-001-isone-rehearing","title":"Order dismissing Eolian's request for rehearing and clarification of the June 18, 2026 ISO-NE show-cause order","issued":"2026-09-21","accession":"20260921-3056","docket":"EL26-72-001","group":"Six large-load show-cause orders, one per RTO/ISO","filer":"FERC","kind":"order","file":"sources/originals/20260921-3056_EL26-72-001.docx","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20260921-3056","sha256":"bce3bbbe5b9b8a45f37b98b59fd085c952045dd8236ca82b960d8c8214ca4a14","pages":null,"tokens":1968,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":1968,"text":"196 FERC ¶ 61,215\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION\n\nBefore Commissioners:  Laura V. Swett, Chairman;\n                                        David Rosner, Lindsay S. See,\n                                        Judy W. Chang, and David LaCerte.\n\nISO New England Inc.\n\nCentral Maine Power Company \nThe Connecticut Light and Power Company \nFitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company \nGreen Mountain Power Corporation \nMaine Electric Power Company \nThe Narragansett Electric Company \nNew England Power Company \nNew Hampshire Transmission, LLC \nNSTAR Electric Company \nPublic Service Company of New Hampshire \nThe United Illuminating Company \nUnitil Energy Systems, Inc. \nVermont Electric Power Company, Inc. \nVermont Transco LLC \nVersant Power\nDocket No.\nEL26-72-001\n\n\nORDER DISMISSING REQUEST FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION\n\n(Issued September 21, 2026)\n\nOn June 18, 2026, the Commission issued an order under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)[fn:2] initiating a show cause proceeding directing ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) and the Participating Transmission Owners[fn:3] to explain why ISO-NE’s Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff (Tariff) remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or propose Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.[fn:4]  On July 20, 2026, Eolian, L.P. (Eolian) filed a request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing.  \nPursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,[fn:5] the rehearing request filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law.  However, we are dismissing Eolian’s request for rehearing and clarification, as discussed below.\nShow Cause Order\nIn the Show Cause Order, the Commission found that ISO-NE’s existing Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential because it lacks certain provisions related to large loads and co-located loads and instituted a show cause proceeding pursuant to FPA section 206.[fn:6]  The Commission directed ISO-NE and the Participating Transmission Owners, within 60 days of the date of the Show Cause Order, i.e., by August, 17, 2026, to either explain why ISO-NE’s Tariff remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or propose Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.[fn:7]\nSpecifically, the Commission made preliminary findings that ISO-NE’s existing Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential because it lacks provisions addressing:  (1) the application process, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements that apply to Eligible Customers seeking transmission service on behalf of large loads;[fn:8] (2) additional transparency concerning the network upgrade costs to provide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, a pro forma cost recovery agreement to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers, and a mechanism to ensure such payments are appropriately credited toward transmission owners’ transmission revenue requirements consistent with the Commission’s cost-of-service regulations; (3) the rates, terms, and conditions of service that apply to co-location arrangements; (4) transmission services that reflect Eligible Customers taking transmission service on behalf of co-located loads, load with behind the meter generation, and flexible large loads that are willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system under certain conditions; and (5) the rates, terms, and conditions of service applicable to interconnection customers serving electrically proximate large load or co-located load.[fn:9]\nOn August 14, 2026, the Commission granted a joint motion for abeyance filed by ISO-NE and Participating Transmission Owners-Administrative Committee, on behalf of the Transmissions Owners,[fn:10] such that responses to the Show Cause Order will be due on November 16, 2026, and answers to responses will be due on December 16, 2026.[fn:11]  The Commission also stated that if ISO-NE or the Participating Transmission Owners submit an FPA section 205 filing addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order on or before November 16, 2026, then the obligation of the respondent(s) who have made such an FPA section 205 filing to file a response to the Show Cause Order will be suspended, and the show cause proceeding will continue to be held in abeyance pending further Commission directive in the show cause proceeding.[fn:12]\nEolian Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing\nEolian requests clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing to provide that electrically proximate generation may access permanent load-limited generator interconnection service where it is equally capable of enabling the large load to limit its withdrawals from the transmission system on a long-term basis without creating system reliability risks.[fn:13]  Eolian contends that the Show Cause Order limits ISO-NE’s ability to put in place a replacement rate that will ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates by not requiring or by limiting its ability to adopt a permanent load-limited generator interconnection service for front-of-the-meter resources that are capable of enabling large loads to limit their withdrawals from the transmission system under certain conditions on a long-term basis without resulting reliability concerns.[fn:14]  Eolian argues that this limitation would create a significant barrier to large loads’ ability to use the new transmission services directed under the Show Cause Order, and therefore would significantly impair the ability of the Show Cause Order to ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates.[fn:15]  \nEolian also requests rehearing or clarification to clarify that any flexibility to tailor the generator interconnection reforms to the unique circumstances of the region must be paired with an obligation for ISO-NE to show that the reforms will enable a pathway for significant generating capacity to provide load-limited interconnection.[fn:16]  Eolian argues that the Show Cause Order includes some language that could be interpreted such that it gives flexibility to ISO-NE to adopt minimal reforms that do not achieve the objectives of ensuring just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates.[fn:17] \nDiscussion\nRule 713(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permits requests for rehearing “of any final decision or other final order in a proceeding.”[fn:18]  A final order imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process.[fn:19]  The Show Cause Order did none of those things.  The Commission did not make any final decision or determination in the Show Cause Order on whether the ISO-NE Tariff is unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential.  The Commission determined only that the Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential and instituted an FPA section 206 show cause proceeding to reach a final determination on this issue.[fn:20]  We therefore dismiss the request for rehearing, which concerns a Commission action that is not final and that will be succeeded by further Commission action.[fn:21]   \nFor similar reasons, we also dismiss the request for clarification.  The show cause proceeding has been held in abeyance until November 16, 2026, to allow ISO-NE stakeholder process to continue so that ISO-NE and the Participating Transmission Owners may submit FPA section 205 filings addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order.[fn:22]  We do not intend to provide clarification or guidance with respect to the Show Cause Order while the show cause proceeding is held in abeyance.[fn:23]  We encourage ISO-NE, the Participating Transmission Owners, and stakeholders to continue with the development of one or more FPA section 205 proposals.\nThe Commission orders:\n\nEolian’s request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing is hereby dismissed, as discussed in the body of this order.\nBy the Commission.\n\n( S E A L )\n\n\n\n\nCarlos D. Clay,\nDeputy Secretary.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes\n[fn:2] 16 U.S.C. § 824e.\n[fn:3] Participating Transmission Owners refers to the entities listed in the caption to this order.\n[fn:4] ISO New Eng. Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215, at PP 3, 32, errata notice, 196 FERC ¶ 61,012 (2026) (Show Cause Order).  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tariff.\n[fn:5] 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).\n[fn:6] Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 at PP 3, 32.\n[fn:7] Id. P 3.\n[fn:8] While the Commission stated that “it appears that it would be reasonable to define a large load as a new, commercial or industrial customer, located at a single site behind one or more points of interconnection, and that has a peak load of 50 MW or greater, interconnects to the transmission system at a voltage level of greater than 69 kV, and is not part of a co-location arrangement,” the Commission also stated that ISO-NE could propose Tariff revisions establishing its own definition of large load.  Id. P 56.\n[fn:9] Id. PP 3, 32.\n[fn:10] The motion for abeyance lists the Transmission Owners as:  Town of Braintree Electric Light Department; Central Maine Power Company; Chicopee Municipal Lighting Plant; Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative; Connecticut Transmission Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative; Eversource Energy Service Company on behalf of The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire and NSTAR Electric Company; Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company; Green Mountain Power Corporation; The City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Town of Hudson Light and Power Department; Maine Electric Power Company; Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company; Town of Middleborough Gas & Electric Department; The Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a Rhode Island Energy; New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid; New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.; New Hampshire Transmission, LLC; Town of Norwood Municipal Light Department; Town of Reading Municipal Light Department; Shrewsbury Electric and Cable Operations; Town of Stowe Electric Department; Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant; The United Illuminating Company; Unitil Energy Systems, Inc.; Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc.; Vermont Public Power Supply Authority; Vermont Transco LLC; Versant Power; and Town of Wallingford, CT, Department of Public Utilities, Electric Division.\n[fn:11] ISO New Eng. Inc., 196 FERC ¶ 61,132, at PP 7-8 (2026) (Abeyance Order).\n[fn:12] Id. P 9.\n[fn:13] Eolian Request at 3, 4-14.  Eolian states that load-limited generator interconnection service “is premised on the generator’s commitment to limiting its output to match the consumption of the load it is supporting.”  Id., attach. A (Aff. of Andrew Levitt) at 3.\n[fn:14] Id. at 3-4.\n[fn:15] Id. at 4-5.\n[fn:16] Id. at 16.\n[fn:17] Id. at 3-4, 14-16.\n[fn:18] 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(b) (2025); see also 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (parties “aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding . . . may apply for a rehearing within 30 days after the issuance of such order”).\n[fn:19] Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 324 F.3d 726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[f]inal agency action ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process’ and is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow”’) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997)).\n[fn:20] See, e.g., Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 at PP 3, 31-32.\n[fn:21] See, e.g., Westlands Transmission, LLC, 177 FERC ¶ 61,175, at P 4 (2021); Red Horse Wind 2, LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,147, at P 3 (2020); BridgeTex Pipeline Co., LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,111, at PP 10-12 (2018); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 162 FERC ¶ 61,246, at PP 6-7 (2018); Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,077, at PP 3-4 (2017).\n[fn:22] Abeyance Order, 196 FERC ¶ 61,132 at PP 7-9.\n[fn:23] The Commission possesses “broad power to structure the proceedings before it.”  Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. FERC, 628 F.2d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting La. Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 536 F.2d 898, 910 (5th Cir. 1976)).\n\nheader1 (Word template)\n- 1 -\n\nheader2 (Word template)\nDocket No. EL26-72-001\t- 1 -"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":6576,"startToken":0,"endToken":959},{"p":1,"at":6576,"title":"Discussion","method":"printed heading","endPage":1,"endAt":8443,"startToken":959,"endToken":1251},{"p":1,"at":8443,"title":"Footnotes","method":"Word notes","endPage":1,"endAt":12687,"startToken":1251,"endToken":1968}]}