{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260803-5210","title":"Request for Abeyance of the New York Transmission Owners and Request for Expedited Commission Action and Shortened Comment Period","issued":"2026-08-03","accession":"20260803-5210","docket":"EL26-69-000","group":"NYISO filings","filer":"Central Hudson Gas & Electric CorporationConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.New York State Electric & Gas Corporation ,Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid ,Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. ,Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation ,","kind":"request","file":"sources/originals/20260803-5210_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260803-5210","sha256":"c32715bd75f1c791df6d79d7b247d23d8609d51db8152cdb0f4f2d1469d8ed0d","pages":31,"tokens":8655,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":298,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \nNew York Independent System Operator, Inc. \n ) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n ) \nCentral Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation \n ) \nConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ) \nDocket No. EL26-69-000 \nLS Power Grid New York Corporation I  \n ) \n \nNew York State Electric & Gas Corporation  \n ) \nNew York Transco LLC \n \n \n \n ) \nNextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. \n ) \nNiagara Mohawk Power Corp.  \n \n \n ) \nOrange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. \n \n ) \nRochester Gas and Electric Corporation    \n ) \n \nREQUEST FOR ABEYANCE OF THE NEW YORK TRANSMISSION OWNERS AND \nREQUEST FOR EXPEDITED COMMISSION ACTION AND SHORTENED \nCOMMENT PERIOD \n \n \nCentral Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, \nInc., New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a \nNational Grid, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation \n(collectively referred to herein as the “New York Transmission Owners” or “NYTOs”)1 \nindividually and collectively, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s \n(“Commission”) Order Instituting Proceeding Under section 206 of the Federal Power Act \n(“FPA”)2 issued June 18, 2026,3 hereby respectfully request that the Commission hold in abeyance \nall aspects of the above-captioned proceeding described below, including the 60-day deadline to \n \n1  \nNew York Power Authority (“NYPA”) and Long Island Power Authority (“LIPA”) are members of the New \nYork Independent System Operator, Inc. (“NYISO”).  In this case, the Commission did not name NYPA and \nLIPA as parties in the Show Cause Order and therefore they are not filing parties to this abeyance request.  \nNevertheless, as intervenors in this case, NYPA and LIPA generally support this abeyance request to allow \nfor coordination among the NYISO and NYTOs on shared responsibilities and vetting with stakeholders on \nfuture FPA section 205 filings.  \n2  \n16 U.S.C. § 824e. \n3  \nN.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,216 (2026) (“Show Cause Order”)."},{"page":2,"startToken":298,"endToken":702,"text":"2 \nrespond to the Show Cause Order, for a full period of 90 days, commencing as of August 17, 2026.  \nThis request is submitted within the 45-day window prescribed by the Show Cause Order and is \nsupported by the substantive description of the anticipated FPA section 2054 filing(s) set forth \nherein.5   \nThe NYTOs understand that the NYISO is also submitting an abeyance request under \nseparate cover in this docket.  The NYTOs support abeyance for the NYISO as well and appreciate \nthe progress that the NYISO has made to date.  The NYISO developed an extensive initial proposal \nthat was presented to stakeholders at the July 23 Transmission Planning Advisory \nCommittee/Electric System Planning Working Group meeting.6  While much work remains to be \ndone, and while the NYISO presentation is under review by the NYTOs, the presentation is a \npromising start.  The NYTOs observe that the NYISO has successfully worked cooperatively with \nstakeholders in developing Order No. 20237 and Order No. 19208 compliance filings, and the \nNYTOs are confident that the NYISO will be able to do so here.  While the NYTOs possess \nunilateral filing rights for certain issues (as discussed below), if granted an abeyance by the \nCommission, the NYTOs commit to coordinate closely with the NYISO and stakeholders and may \n \n4  \n16 U.S.C. § 824d. \n5  \nAs explained below, the NYTOs have not yet determined the procedural vehicle for their forthcoming FPA \nsection 205 filing, which may take the form of a companion, NYTO-specific filing, or, if the NYTOs and \nNYISO mutually agree, a joint NYISO and NYTOs filing.  In either case, the NYTOs commit to coordinate \nclosely with the NYISO and stakeholders. \n6  \nNYISO, Large Load FERC Show Cause Order (July 23, 2026) (“NYISO Show Cause Order Presentation”), \nhttps://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/58620525/04_FERC%20Large%20Load%20Show%20Cause%2\n0Order%20-%20ESPWG.pdf/3b66b965-05ad-51e6-a4c5-c9846eeada4c. \n7  \nImprovements to Generator Interconnection Procs. & Agreements, Order No. 2023, 184 FERC ¶ 61,054, \norder on reh’g, 185 FERC ¶ 61,063 (2023), order reh’g & clarification, Order No. 2023-A, 186 FERC ¶ \n61,199 (2024), petition for review denied sub nom. Advanced Energy United, et al. v. FERC, No. 23-1282 \n(D.C. Cir. July 31, 2026). \n8  \nBldg. for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation, Order No. 1920, 187 \nFERC ¶ 61,068, order on reh’g & clarification, 189 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2024), order on reh’g & clarification, \n191 FERC ¶ 61,026 (2025)."},{"page":3,"startToken":702,"endToken":962,"text":"3 \nsubmit separate a NYTO-only FPA section 205 filing or, should the NYTOs and NYISO mutually \nagree, join a single FPA section 205 filing with the NYISO, as appropriate. \nI. \nBACKGROUND \nA. \nThe Show Cause Order \nOn June 18, 2026, the Commission issued the Show Cause Order, instituting a proceeding \nunder FPA section 206 based on the Commission’s preliminary finding that the NYISO’s Open \nAccess Transmission Tariff (“OATT” or “Tariff”)9 appears to be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly \ndiscriminatory or preferential.10  The Commission issued the Show Cause Order as part of a suite \nof six coordinated orders directed to each of the RTO/ISO regions subject to the Commission’s \njurisdiction. \nThe Show Cause Order includes preliminary findings that the NYISO’s Tariff appears \nunjust and unreasonable in five principal respects: \n1.  Transmission Service Study Process for Large Loads.  The Commission \npreliminarily found that the NYISO’s Tariff lacks sufficiently clear and consistent provisions \naddressing: (a) a definition of large load as a distinct category of load; (b) a mandatory application \nprocess, readiness requirements, and study procedures for Eligible Customers seeking \ntransmission service on behalf of large loads; (c) study timelines of no more than 60-90 calendar \ndays; (d) ongoing operational requirements – including telemetry, data reporting, remote \ndisconnect capability, ramp rate and ride-through requirements, and protection systems – for \ntransmission customers serving large loads; (e) evaluation of alternative transmission technologies \n \n9  \nCapitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set forth in the NYISO OATT or Market \nAdministration and Control Area Services Tariff, as applicable.   \n10  \nShow Cause Order at P 3."},{"page":4,"startToken":962,"endToken":1269,"text":"4 \nas potential solutions in lieu of or in addition to traditional Network Upgrades; and (f) pro forma \nprovisions in transmission service agreements to memorialize operational requirements.11 \n2.  Cost Transparency and Cost Recovery.  The Commission preliminarily found that \nthe NYISO Tariff lacks: (a) robust, centralized, publicly accessible data on its website regarding \nthe Network Upgrades and associated costs needed to provide transmission service to Eligible \nCustomers on behalf of large loads; and (b) a pro forma cost recovery agreement between the \nNYISO, the relevant Transmission Owner, and the Eligible Customer taking transmission service \non behalf of a large load, with a minimum financial contribution and credit support requirement \nsufficient to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers.12 \n3.  Co-Location Arrangements and Behind-the-Meter Generation.  The Commission \npreliminarily found that the NYISO’s Tariff lacks: (a) a definition of co-located load; (b) \nsufficiently clear and consistent provisions governing the rates, terms, and conditions of service \napplicable to interconnection customers serving co-located load, including required ancillary \nservice charges (regulation and black start service on a gross demand basis); and (c) provisions \naddressing netting of behind-the-meter generation from gross load for purposes of calculating \napplicable Transmission Service Charges in a manner consistent with the cost causation \nprinciple.13 \n4.  New Transmission Services for Eligible Load and Flexible Large Loads.  The \nCommission preliminarily found that the NYISO’s Tariff lacks transmission services that reflect \n \n11  \nShow Cause Order at PP 56-71. \n12  \nId. PP 77-91. \n13  \nId. PP 101-110.  See, e.g., Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC v. FERC, 108 F.4th 858, 868-69 (D.C. Cir. 2024) \n(“[T]he cost causation principle requires that ‘all approved rates reflect to some degree the costs actually \ncaused by the customer who must pay them.’”) (quoting S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41, 88 \n(D.C. Cir. 2014))."},{"page":5,"startToken":1269,"endToken":1546,"text":"5 \nthe operational capabilities of Eligible Customers taking transmission service on behalf of Eligible \nLoad (co-located load and load with behind-the-meter generation) and flexible large loads that are \nwilling and able to limit their energy withdrawals from the transmission system under certain \nconditions, specifically: (a) an interim non-firm network transmission service (“Interim NITS”) \navailable while Network Upgrades are being constructed; and (b) permanent firm and non-firm \ncontract demand transmission services.14 \n5.  Generator Interconnection for Electrically Proximate Large Load and Co-Located \nLoad.  The Commission preliminarily found that the NYISO’s Tariff lacks generator \ninterconnection study procedures and generator interconnection services tailored to reflect an \ninterconnection customer’s commitment to limit a generating facility’s output to match the hourly \nforecast of an electrically proximate large load or large co-located load, thereby potentially \nreducing the need for Network Upgrades and accelerating the interconnection process.15 \nThe Show Cause Order directs the NYISO and the named Transmission Owners, within 60 \ndays of issuance (i.e., by August 17, 2026), to either: (1) show cause as to why the Tariff remains \njust and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential without provisions addressing \nthe foregoing concerns; or (2) explain what Tariff changes would remedy those concerns were the \nCommission to determine that the Tariff is in fact unjust and unreasonable and to establish a \nreplacement Tariff.16  The Commission separately directed the NYISO to submit, within 30 days \nof issuance (i.e., by July 18, 2026), an informational report on its plans to ensure adequate \ngeneration to serve existing and new large loads.17  \n \n14  \nId. PP 109, 112-113. \n15  \nId. PP 121-127. \n16  \nE.g., id. P 3.  \n17 \nId. PP 128-129."},{"page":6,"startToken":1546,"endToken":1885,"text":"6 \nThe Show Cause Order also provides the NYISO and/or the Transmission Owners the \nopportunity to seek to hold all or certain aspects of the proceeding in abeyance while they develop \nFPA section 205 filings to address the Commission’s concerns.  Specifically, the Show Cause \nOrder states that: \n The Commission will consider requests for abeyance of up to 90 days; \n The abeyance period will begin as of the deadline to respond to the Show Cause \nOrder (August 17, 2026); \n Abeyance requests must be submitted within 45 days of the issuance of the Show \nCause Order (i.e., by August 3, 2026); \n The Commission will not grant abeyances reflexively, and will look with great \ndisfavor toward requests to extend the abeyance period beyond 90 days; and \n Successful abeyance requests must include both: (1) a robust description of the \ncontent of a potential future FPA section 205 filing; and (2) a reasoned and specific \nexplanation of when such a filing is expected to be made.18 \nThe NYTOs submit this filing on August 3, 2026, within the 45-day window, and it \nincludes a detailed description of the NYTOs’ plans to coordinate with the NYISO and \nstakeholders to address the issues identified in the Show Cause Order. \nB. \nThe NYTOs’ Independent Filing Rights Under the NYISO-TO Agreement  \nThe NYTOs file this request independently from the NYISO, in accordance with the rights \nexplicitly reserved in section 3.10(a) of the NYISO-TO Agreement.19  Section 3.10(a) provides, in \nrelevant part, that: \nEach Transmission Owner shall have the right at any time \nunilaterally to file pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act \nto change the ISO OATT, a Service Agreement under the ISO \nOATT, or the ISO Agreement to the extent necessary: (i) to recover \nall of its reasonably incurred costs, plus a reasonable return on \ninvestment related to services under the ISO OATT and (ii) to \n \n18  \nId. P 42. \n19  \nNYISO, Foundation Agreements, Agreement Between New York Independent System Operator and \nTransmission Owners (0.0.0) (“NYISO-TO Agreement”)."},{"page":7,"startToken":1885,"endToken":2154,"text":"7 \naccommodate implementation of, and changes to, a Transmission \nOwner’s retail access program.20 \nCritically, section 3.10(a) confers upon each Transmission Owner the unilateral right to \nfile with the Commission under FPA section 205 – independent of the NYISO’s \nconcurrence – to the extent necessary to recover reasonably incurred costs associated with \nservices provided under the NYISO OATT and to accommodate changes to the NYTOs’ \nretail access programs.21 \nThe Show Cause Order expressly recognizes this allocation of rights and \nresponsibilities.  Indeed, the Commission acknowledged that “the Transmission Owners \nmay be partially responsible for conducting the studies that (1) evaluate whether a large \nload may be interconnected to the transmission system and served by the Eligible Customer \nand (2) determine whether Network Upgrades are necessary to provide transmission \nservice.”22  The Commission further explained that it “appreciate[s] that this role may stem \nfrom how NYISO and the Transmission Owners allocated rights and responsibilities in the \ngoverning documents establishing NYISO” and “does not seek to alter that allocation of \nrights and responsibilities.”23 \nSeveral matters addressed in the Show Cause Order directly implicate the NYTOs’ \nability to recover their reasonably incurred costs through Commission-jurisdictional \ntransmission rates.  As the Commission itself acknowledges, the costs of Network \n \n20  \nId. § 3.10(a). \n21  \nSee id. § 3.03 (providing that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement except for the \nprovisions of Section 3.10,” proposed OATT revisions are subject to certain stakeholder and NYISO \ngovernance procedures (including review by the NYISO Board of Directors) before being filed at FERC) \n(emphasis added). \n22  \nShow Cause Order at P 58. \n23  \nId."},{"page":8,"startToken":2154,"endToken":2403,"text":"8 \nUpgrades needed to provide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large \nloads are inputs to jurisdictional transmission rates and are recovered through each \nTransmission Owner’s Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement.24  Accordingly, the \nNYTOs’ independent filing rights under section 3.10(a) of the NYISO-TO Agreement are \nsquarely implicated with respect to key issues identified below. \nSection 3.10(a) also provides an independent, second basis for the NYTOs’ \nunilateral FPA section 205 filing rights that is equally applicable to certain key issues \nidentified below: the right to file “to accommodate implementation of, and changes to, a \nTransmission Owner’s retail access program.”  The Show Cause Order’s directives directly \nimplicate the NYTOs’ retail access obligations.  Specifically, any cost transparency \nrequirements, cost recovery agreements, and study process reforms at issue would directly \naffect how large loads – including retail transmission service customers that qualify as \nEligible Customers under the transmission provider and/or Transmission Owner tariffs – \nare interconnected and served under each NYTO’s retail access program.  Thus, the Tariff \nreforms at issue here will necessarily affect each NYTO’s retail access obligations, \nengaging the retail access prong of section 3.10(a) as an additional, independent basis for \nthe NYTOs’ filing authority.   \nII. \nREQUEST FOR ABEYANCE  \nThe NYTOs respectfully submit this request for a full 90-day abeyance of the above-\ncaptioned show cause proceeding.  The NYTOs recognize the urgency of the Commission’s \nconcerns regarding the integration of large and co-located loads onto the New York transmission \n \n24  \nId. PP 20, 85."},{"page":9,"startToken":2403,"endToken":2692,"text":"9 \nsystem and are committed to working with the NYISO to develop comprehensive, regionally-\ntailored solutions. \nAs detailed below, the NYTOs have already begun the processes, which are directly \nresponsive to the Commission’s concerns.  Granting a full 90-day abeyance will allow those \nprocesses to advance to the point at which the NYTOs can propose – either in a potential joint FPA \nsection 205 filing with the NYISO or in a companion FPA section 205, NYTO-only filing – Tariff \nrevisions addressing the full scope of the Commission’s preliminary findings that are within the \npurview of the NYTOs.  Indeed, the Commission expressly recognized that the Transmission \nOwners “may elect to address some or all of the issues discussed in this order by proposing \nrevisions to the Tariff pursuant to their applicable FPA section 205 filing rights” and stated that it \n“strongly encourage[s]” the NYISO and/or NYTOs to submit FPA section 205 filings.25  \nProceeding through an FPA section 205 filing that is developed in coordination with NYISO, the \nNew York Public Service Commission (“NYPSC”), and other stakeholders rather than through \nFPA section 206 litigation will produce more targeted, operationally sound proposals that are \nbetter calibrated to NYISO’s unique market structure, resource adequacy construct, and existing \nTariff framework. \nConsistent with section 3.10(a) and the Commission’s own recognition of the NYTOs’ \nindependent role described above, the instant proceeding falls squarely within the scope of the \nNYTOs’ unilateral filing rights, which extend to matters that directly affect their ability to recover \nreasonably incurred costs through Commission-jurisdictional transmission rates and to \nmodifications to their retail access programs.  The Show Cause Order raises important questions \nabout the adequacy of the NYISO’s Tariff provisions relating to: (1) the study process for \n \n25  \nId. P 41."},{"page":10,"startToken":2692,"endToken":2988,"text":"10 \ntransmission service requests on behalf of large loads, the results of which directly determine what \nNetwork Upgrades are required and the associated costs that flow into each NYTO’s transmission \nrates, including potentially a pro forma interconnection agreement that memorializes the results of \nthat study process; (2) cost recovery agreements that would require Eligible Customers to bear the \nrisk of costs incurred to provide transmission service, including Network Upgrade costs; (3) \nrevenue crediting mechanisms to ensure that payments made pursuant to such cost recovery \nagreements are appropriately reflected in, and do not result in double recovery through, each \nNYTO’s transmission rates applicable to other FERC-jurisdictional customers; (4) transmission \nservice charges and new transmission service products – including firm and non-firm withdrawal \nservice and contract demand-based service – needed to reflect the operational characteristics of \nlarge loads and co-located loads; (5) cost transparency mechanisms that will directly affect the \npublic visibility of each NYTO’s transmission-related costs; and (6) operating requirements \napplicable to non-firm transmission withdrawal service and paired or behind-the-meter generation \nsupplies.  Each of these issues is inextricably linked to the NYTOs’ ability to recover their \nreasonably incurred costs under the Tariff and to changes to the manner in which the NYTOs \nprovide retail transmission services – the precise subject matter of the independent filing rights \npreserved under section 3.10(a) of the NYISO-TO Agreement. \nA full 90-day abeyance is warranted here.  The issues identified in the Show Cause Order \nare substantial in scope and technical complexity, encompassing potential new large load study \nprocesses, cost recovery and transparency mechanisms, co-location Tariff provisions, new \ntransmission service products, and new generator interconnection services.  Creating thorough and \ntechnically valid Tariff proposals to address the Commission’s concerns, including those areas \nwithin the NYTOs’ scope of reserved rights, requires sufficient time for active collaboration"},{"page":11,"startToken":2988,"endToken":3296,"text":"11 \nbetween the NYTOs, the NYISO, and other parties listed in the Show Cause Order, and also for \nadequate consultation with subject matter experts.  The 90-day abeyance period is the minimum \ntime necessary to responsibly advance this work and to vet with stakeholders, coordinate with the \nNYISO, and deliver proposals of the quality and comprehensiveness the Commission has invited.  \nThe NYTOs are committed to using the abeyance period efficiently and anticipate making an FPA \nsection 205 filing (either in a potential joint filing with the NYISO or in a companion NYTO-only \nstandalone filing) to address the issues raised in the Show Cause Order that fall within the NYTOs’ \npurview. \nIII. \nDESCRIPTION OF ANTICIPATED FPA SECTION 205 FILING  \nConsistent with the Show Cause Order’s requirement that a successful abeyance request \ninclude a robust description of the content of any anticipated FPA section 205 filing, the NYTOs \nprovide the following description of the Tariff revisions they anticipate proposing in coordination \nwith the NYISO and stakeholders.  Specifically, NYTOs have identified the following areas that \nfall within the purview of their independent, unilateral FPA section 205 filing rights pursuant to \nsection 3.10(a) of the NYISO-TO Agreement: (1) cost allocation and recovery; (2) mechanisms to \nensure that payments made by Eligible Customers pursuant to cost recovery agreements or Tariff \nprovisions are appropriately credited toward each NYTO’s transmission revenue requirement to \nthe extent such costs are included in such revenue requirements consistent with the Commission’s \ncost-of-service regulations; (3) rate design issues concerning new transmission services reflecting \nthe operational characteristics of large loads, co-located loads, and flexible large loads willing and \nable to limit their use of the transmission system;26 (4) aspects of the load interconnection study \n \n26  \nThe preservation of the tax exempt status for certain NYTOs as well as for local furnishing bonds will need \nto be preserved as well."},{"page":12,"startToken":3296,"endToken":3617,"text":"12 \nprocess for which the NYTOs will be responsible (including the Facilities Study); and (5) certain \noperational requirements for Eligible Customers taking service on behalf of large loads, along with \nany necessary agreements and Tariff changes to implement the foregoing.27  \nThe NYTOs note that, under their unilateral filing rights found in section 3.10(a) of the \nNYISO-TO Agreement, they are not required to seek approval of their proposed FPA section 205 \nfiling through the NYISO stakeholder process.  However, the NYTOs commit to sharing their \nproposals with the NYISO and stakeholders during the abeyance period to seek feedback, and note \nthat, as a result, the specific scope and provisions of the anticipated filing described below may be \nfurther refined and altered.   \nThe NYISO has indicated that, if the Commission grants an abeyance in this proceeding, \nthe NYISO will present elements of an FPA section 205 filing during meetings with the NYTOs \nand stakeholders scheduled to occur as frequently as weekly through November 16, 2026.  The \nNYTOs will be primarily responsible for certain key functions and, as such, will reserve time at \nthose meetings to present the proposals for stakeholder feedback.  In parallel, the NYTOs and the \nNYISO will allocate responsibility for drafting Tariff provisions and agreements to revise the \nrelevant large load interconnection and cost allocation and recovery procedures as appropriate. \nAt this stage, the NYTOs do not know if they will (i) join with the NYISO an FPA section \n205 filing that addresses all issues raised in the Show Cause Order or (ii) submit a companion, \nNYTO-only filing that addresses the issues within the NYTOs’ unilateral FPA section 205 filing \nrights.  In either case, however, the NYTOs will coordinate closely with the NYISO and other \nstakeholders. \n \n27  \nThis is not intended to be an exclusive list of the items within the NYTOs’ unilateral FPA section 205 filing \nright and does not constitute a waiver of any NYTO filing right."},{"page":13,"startToken":3617,"endToken":3906,"text":"13 \nA. \nCost Recovery and Transmission Service Charges \n1. \nNetwork Upgrade Cost Recovery \nThe Commission preliminarily found in the Show Cause Order that the NYISO Tariff \nappears unjust and unreasonable because it lacks adequate mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cost \nshifting among transmission customers.  First, the Commission noted the lack of Tariff provisions \nrequiring NYISO to post in a single location on the NYISO website certain Network Upgrade and \ncost data and other related information.28  Second, the Commission pointed to the absence of a pro \nforma cost recovery agreement between NYISO, the relevant Transmission Owner, and the \nEligible Customer taking transmission service on behalf of large loads that helps ensure that \nEligible Customers bear the risk and are ultimately responsible for costs incurred to provide \ntransmission service, including Network Upgrade costs.29  The Commission also contemplated the \npossibility of Transmission Owners entering into cost recovery agreements with large load \ncustomers themselves rather than the corresponding Eligible Customers.30 \nThe NYTOs plan to coordinate with NYISO, NYPSC, the New York Department of Public \nService (“DPS”),31 and other interested stakeholders to develop a process for the Transmission \nOwner to recover from the Eligible Customer or large load customer, as applicable, an allocable \nshare of the cost of Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities and Network Upgrades.   \nIn a single-state ISO like the NYISO, a state public utility commission is in a good position \nto address cost allocation issues associated with upgrades to accommodate large loads.  Among \nother factors, the NYPSC will be in a good position to balance various benefits provided by \n \n28  \nId. P 77. \n29  \nId. P 83. \n30  \nId. P 88. \n31  \nThe NYPSC is housed within the DPS. N.Y. Pub. Serv. Law § 4 (McKinney 2024)."},{"page":14,"startToken":3906,"endToken":4251,"text":"14 \nupgrades in terms of reliability, public policy, and economic benefits for all loads.  The NYPSC \nand NYISO have a highly coordinated transmission planning process, which integrates the \nNYPSC’s Comprehensive Grid Planning Process and the NYISO’s long-term planning process \ndeveloped pursuant to Order No. 1920.  In addition, each NYTO has bundled retail rates covering \ntransmission and distribution revenue requirements established by the NYPSC. \n The NYPSC is also currently presiding over a proceeding to address cost allocation and \nissues associated with large load interconnections.32  A July 14, 2026 Executive Order issued by \nNew York Governor Kathy Hochul similarly directed the DPS to take certain action “to identify \nand resolve issues related to the interconnection of data centers, and other large loads, in order to \nsupport efficient interconnection of large new customers and the faithful compliance of \n‘beneficiary pays’ principles as related to network upgrade and resource adequacy costs.”33  The \nJuly 14, 2026 Executive Order and Show Cause Order appear to be driven by similar or shared \nconcerns.  The cost allocation framework that the NYTOs ultimately include in a cost recovery \nagreement that they will submit for FERC review in a subsequent FPA section 205 filing will thus \nneed to be developed in close coordination with DPS. \nSpecifically, the NYTOs will file under FPA section 205 a mechanism by which each \nConnecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner, as applicable, will recover an \nallocable share of the cost of Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities and Network \nUpgrades.  Cost recovery will be obtained from the Eligible Customer taking transmission service \non behalf of the large load or, where the Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner \n \n32  \nNYPSC Case No. 26-E-0045, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Address Interconnection Reforms \nfor Large Loads, Order Instituting Proceeding and Soliciting Comments (Feb. 12, 2026). \n33  \nExec. Order 62: Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Data Centers in New York While the State \nDevelops Higher Standards for Data Center Development and Benefits Blueprint to Support Localities (July \n14, 2026), https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/EO_62.pdf."},{"page":15,"startToken":4251,"endToken":4567,"text":"15 \nand the large load customer enter into a cost recovery agreement directly, from the large load \ncustomer.  The NYTOs intend to incorporate the NYPSC’s cost allocation determinations and to \nfile with the Commission a proposed mechanism – likely in the form of a  pro forma agreement \nand/or Tariff provisions  – consistent with the Commission’s jurisdiction.  In some cases, costs \nfrom upgrades may be shared among more than one Eligible Customer or large load customer in \na load interconnection cluster.  The NYTOs will also describe the security posting requirements \nas part of the rates, terms, and conditions applicable to large loads to address situations in which a \nlarge load triggers substantial investments in upgrades.  The NYTOs intend to include these \nrequirements in a legally enforceable framework set forth in a pro forma cost recovery agreement \nand/or Tariff provisions applicable to Eligible Customers or large load customers. \nMoreover, the NYTOs will provide for “head room adjustments” so that when a future \nEligible Customer or large load customer, as appropriate, utilizes head room created by a Network \nUpgrade for which an earlier Eligible Customer or large load customer is paying charges to the \nConnecting Transmission Owner or Affected Transmission Owner, the earlier Eligible Customer’s \nor large load customer’s costs are reduced based on the cost responsibility allocated to the new \nEligible Customer or large load customer.   \nNYISO commenced operations in 1999.  The NYPSC has been regulating all aspects of \nTransmission Owner retail access programs including, in some cases, bundled retail transmission \nand distribution rates since 1996, when the NYPSC issued its landmark Opinion No. 96-12 \ndirecting utilities in New York to file, inter alia, “a schedule for the introduction of retail access” \nto the utilities’ customers.34  The NYPSC has also regulated cost allocation, rate design, and cost \n \n34  \nIn the Matter of Competitive Opportunities Regarding Electric Service, Case 94-E-0952, et al., Opinion No. \n96-12 at 82 (1996)."},{"page":16,"startToken":4567,"endToken":4902,"text":"16 \nrecovery associated with upgrade costs for all retail customers, including large retail access \ncustomers.  The NYTOs intend to work collaboratively with NYPSC to establish transmission \nupgrade cost allocation, which would then be implemented through pro forma agreements and/or \nTariff provisions to be submitted in the forthcoming FPA section 205 filing.35  In developing this \nmechanism, the NYTOs will consider structural approaches similar to the novel cost recovery \narrangements the Commission has previously accepted.36  Such arrangements may include a \nminimum financial contribution from the large load customer or Eligible Customer, as applicable, \ntoward the Transmission Owner’s transmission revenue requirement, coupled with a credit support \nor other financial security requirement sufficient to protect other transmission customers if the \nlarge load does not ultimately take the anticipated level of transmission service. \n2. \nRevenue Crediting \nThe Commission also preliminarily found in the Show Cause Order that any payments \nmade by an Eligible Customer (or by a large load) to a Transmission Owner pursuant to a cost \nrecovery agreement should be appropriately credited toward the Transmission Owner’s \ntransmission revenue requirements consistent with the Commission’s cost-of-service regulations37 \nif the costs allocated to the Eligible Customer were otherwise being recovered in FERC-\njurisdictional rates.  On this issue, the Commission noted that “it appears reasonable for filers of \nformula rates to provide a separate workpaper in the annual informational filing describing how \n \n35  \nIf the NYTOs propose in the forthcoming FPA section 205 filing – and the Commission accepts – a pro \nforma agreement, any non-conforming iterations of that agreement will be filed with FERC moving forward. \n36  \nSee, e.g., Show Cause Order at P 75 & n.181 (citing Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,106 (2026); \nCommonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,109 (2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,110 \n(2026); Commonwealth Edison Co., 194 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2026); PECO Energy Co., 193 FERC ¶ 61,148 \n(2025); Dayton Power & Light Co., 192 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2025); Dayton Power & Light Co., 189 FERC ¶ \n61,220 (2024)). \n37  \nId. P 91."},{"page":17,"startToken":4902,"endToken":5177,"text":"17 \nany payments made pursuant to a cost recovery agreement are reflected in the transmission owner’s \ntransmission formula rate.”38   \nIn a forthcoming FPA section 205 filing, the NYTOs will provide for periodic NYTO-\nspecific filings with the Commission describing whether the applicable NYTO has included costs \nof Network Upgrades allocated to one or more Eligible Customers or large load customers, as \napplicable, in the NYTO’s rate base in Commission-jurisdictional rates applicable to other \ntransmission customers.  Specifically, if a NYTO has included any such Network Upgrade costs \nin its FERC-jurisdictional rates applicable to other Eligible Customers or large load customers, the \nNYTO will provide for a revenue credit to the extent the NYTO is recovering those Network \nUpgrade costs.  Alternatively, the NYTO may include in a Commission filing with its next update \nin the formula rate applicable to FERC-jurisdictional transmission service a statement that the \nNYTO has not included Network Upgrade costs allocated to specified Eligible Customers or large \nload customers in the NYTO’s rate base for FERC-jurisdictional rates paid by other transmission \ncustomers or that the NYTO has included only an allocable share of such costs and an explanation \nfor the allocation. \n3. \nTransmission Service Charges \nIn the Show Cause Order, the Commission preliminarily found that NYISO’s Tariff is \nunjust and unreasonable because it lacks transmission services reflecting Eligible Customers’ \ntaking service on behalf of:  (1) co-located load and/or load with behind-the-meter generation and \n(2) flexible large loads that are willing and able to limit energy withdrawals from the transmission \nsystem under certain conditions.39  Among other things, the Commission directed the NYISO \n \n38  \nId. \n39  \nShow Cause Order at PP 101-110, 112-113."},{"page":18,"startToken":5177,"endToken":5435,"text":"18 \neither to (1) explain whether the Tariff remains just and reasonable without an interim non-firm \nnetwork transmission service while Network Upgrades are being constructed (i.e., Interim NITS) \nand without permanent firm and non-firm contract demand transmission services (transmission \nservice up to a specified MW quantity, i.e., the contract level, on a firm or non-firm basis) or (2) \npropose Tariff revisions.40 \nThe NYISO has indicated that, to address the Commission’s concerns, it intends to provide \n“Firm Withdrawal Service” for large loads that do not cause resource adequacy or transmission \nsecurity adverse impacts or have completed all necessary resource adequacy supply and \ntransmission security Network Upgrades as needed.41  For other large loads, NYISO will offer \n“Non-Firm Withdrawal Service.”42  NYISO has explained that large loads taking Firm Withdrawal \nService “will be treated the same as other customers taking firm service, including having the same \ncurtailment priority,” while large loads that take Non-Firm Withdrawal Service “will have a lower \ncurtailment priority than NYISO’s firm transmission service, including Firm Withdrawal \nService.”43 \nThe NYTOs appreciate the NYISO’s efforts thus far and intend to collaborate closely with \nthe NYISO to develop the constructs further.  The NYTOs intend to work with the NYISO to \nensure that the rates reflected in the charges associated with such new transmission services accord \nwith the cost causation principle44 but reserve the right to utilize the NYTOs’ independent and \n \n40  \nId. PP 109, 113. \n41  \nNYISO Show Cause Order Presentation, supra note 6, at 32. \n42  \nId. \n43  \nId. \n44  \nSee supra note 13."},{"page":19,"startToken":5435,"endToken":5713,"text":"19 \nunilateral FPA section 205 filing rights under section 3.10(a) of the NYISO-TO Agreement if \nnecessary. \nSpecifically, the NYISO has indicated it will settle with large loads or Eligible Customers \ntaking service on behalf of large loads for certain charges under the NYISO OATT and Market \nAdministration and Control Area Services Tariff, including applicable locational-based marginal \nprices at the Point of Withdrawal, which cover the transmission charges for congestion and \nmarginal losses, and applicable ancillary service charges.  These charges, however, do not address \neach NYTO’s embedded costs of transmission.  Since the NYISO’s inception in 1999, the NYTOs \nhave used a “license plate” rate design.  Each NYTO uses an embedded cost formula rate, the \nWholesale Transmission Service Charge (“TSC”), for “wheel through” and “export” transactions \nthat exit the New York Control Area.45  In addition, as noted above, each NYTO has bundled retail \nrates covering transmission and distribution revenue requirements established by the NYPSC.  \nSuch NYPSC-established retail rates also include System Benefits Charges to support entry of new \nelectric supplies, retention of nuclear resources, and other public policies.  It is essential that rates \napplicable to large loads or Eligible Customers taking service on behalf of large loads reflect \nappropriate allocations of such System Benefits Charges as the NYPSC determines appropriate \nbased on its consideration of all retail loads in the State.  \nThe NYPSC also accounts for Wholesale TSC revenues, Transmission Congestion \nContract (“TCC”) auction revenues, congestion rents, and grandfathered transmission contract \nrevenues that each NYTO receives or pays so that retail customers receive the benefits of \ntransmission-related revenues and pay their allocable share of costs.  This balancing of revenues, \n \n45  \nSee NYISO OATT Attach. H, § 14.1."},{"page":20,"startToken":5713,"endToken":5988,"text":"20 \ndemand, and costs is part of the development of the rates applicable to retail customers in New \nYork, including large loads.  \nEach NYTO also has retail TSCs that are established by the NYPSC, including charges \napplicable to large load customers.  Historically, each NYTO has referenced a state-approved retail \nservice classification for such loads as provided for in the Retail Transmission section of the OATT \n(section 5).  The NYTOs plan to continue this practice and will develop tariff provisions for \nsubmission to the NYPSC and NYISO OATT provisions for submission to FERC to identify how \nrates are established and updated from time to time.  As is the case today, the applicable \njurisdictional rates will be referenced in section 5 of the OATT and remain subject to FERC \nreview.  \nThe NYTOs will include in a forthcoming FPA section 205 filing any changes in rates \ndeemed necessary in order to accommodate Firm Withdrawal Service and Non-Firm Withdrawal \nService.  The different forms of service may require changes in the billing determinants, billing \nunits, demand allocators, and cost allocation mechanisms.  The NYTOs are working on these \nissues and will consult the NYISO, NYPSC, DPS, and other stakeholders in advance of the FPA \nsection 205 filing. \nB. \nLarge Load Interconnection Procedures and Agreements \nThe Commission preliminarily found in the Show Cause Order that the NYISO and/or \nNYTOs should modify the NYISO OATT and/or agreements to address: the scope and timing of \ninterconnection studies, including the Facilities Studies; 46 the evaluation of transmission service \nrequests for large loads;47 Eligible Customer or large load operational requirements – including \n \n46  \nShow Cause Order at PP 65, 69. \n47  \nId. PP 65-66."},{"page":21,"startToken":5988,"endToken":6248,"text":"21 \ndispatch, curtailment, and disconnection provisions that are subject to rights held by both the \nNYISO and the Connecting Transmission Owner and/or Affected Transmission Owner;48 \ninformation requirements, study deposits, and study assumptions and procedures;49 Facilities \nStudy procedures;50 and interconnection agreement terms, conditions, and transparency. \n1. \nInterconnection Study Provisions  \nThe NYTOs are responsible for significant interconnection and transmission service study \nwork associated with large loads.  This work must be conducted in close coordination with the \nNYISO because of the bifurcated nature of the study process.  Accordingly, without waiving any \nrights, the NYTOs intend to develop coordinated study processes with the NYISO and anticipate \na unified set of terms and conditions that will be part of a NYISO or a potential joint NYISO-\nNYTO FPA section 205 filing.  \n The Commission acknowledged that the NYTOs bear a distinct and independent role in \nthis process.  Specifically, the Commission recognized that “the Transmission Owners may be \npartially responsible for conducting the studies that (1) evaluate whether a large load may be \ninterconnected to the transmission system and served by the Eligible Customer and (2) determine \nwhether Network Upgrades are necessary to provide transmission service.”51  The Commission \nfurther stated that it “appreciate[s] that this role may stem from how NYISO and the Transmission \nOwners allocated rights and responsibilities in the governing documents establishing NYISO” and \nexpressly confirmed that it “do[es] not seek to alter that allocation of rights and responsibilities.”52  \n \n48  \nId. P 70. \n49  \nId. P 46. \n50  \nId. P 90. \n51  \nId. P 58. \n52  \nId."},{"page":22,"startToken":6248,"endToken":6557,"text":"22 \nThis acknowledgment is significant as it confirms that the NYTOs’ role in the study process is not \nmerely derivative of NYISO’s obligations under the Tariff, but rather reflects an independent \nallocation of responsibilities that the Commission has expressly declined to disturb. \nThe NYTOs are committed to working with the NYISO and stakeholders to address the \nCommission’s preliminary guidance.  Consistent with the large load interconnection process \nimprovements under development with the NYISO, the NYISO would continue to perform Load \nSystem Impact Studies (“Load SIS”) with improvements to make results more valuable.  \nFollowing the Load SIS, as proposed by the NYISO, the NYISO and the Connecting Transmission \nOwner would engage in an alternate evaluation process in which NYISO identifies the bulk power \nsystem violations that must be addressed on a more granular level, and the Connecting \nTransmission Owner identifies the non-bulk system violations and proposed solutions for all of \nthose violations in the Facilities Study.   \nAs part of the Facilities Study, the NYISO would review the proposed solutions for their \nadequacy to resolve the identified bulk power system violations.  This process entails a number of \nimportant handoffs and integrated coordination between the NYISO and the Connecting \nTransmission Owner.  Certain aspects of the Facilities Study process thus may be best addressed \nthrough a coordinated FPA section 205 filing with the NYISO, rather than through unilateral action \nby the NYTOs.  Accordingly, without waiving their section 205 rights, the NYTOs intend to work \nwith the NYISO and stakeholders toward a coordinated FPA section 205 filing addressing the load \ninterconnection and service processes because the NYTOs believe this will produce the most \nefficient results on a necessarily coordinated process.  The NYTOs have a strong track record of \nworking with the NYISO on shared responsibility for interconnection and transmission planning, \nas evidenced by the recent Order Nos. 2023 and 1920 compliance filings.  The NYTOs anticipate"},{"page":23,"startToken":6557,"endToken":6848,"text":"23 \nworking through the coordinated process with the NYISO to develop improved large load \ninterconnection processes as well.  \nThe NYTOs will work with the NYISO and stakeholders to address the following key \nelements with respect to the interconnection study provisions in the anticipated FPA section 205 \nfiling: \n \nFirst, the NYTOs will work with the NYISO and stakeholders to develop Tariff provisions \ngoverning the Facilities Study process for large load interconnections.  Consistent with the \ncoordinated approach described above, the NYTOs anticipate working with the NYISO and \nstakeholders toward Tariff provisions addressing, among other things, (1) the steps and process \nfor conducting the Facilities Study, (2) the additional information the Eligible Customer or large \nload customer, as appropriate, must provide to the Connecting Transmission Owner in connection \nwith the Facilities Study, and (3) the outputs of the Facilities Study, including the scope and form \nof the cost estimates and study report delivered to the Eligible Customer.  Because the NYTOs \nbear primary responsibility for the Facilities Study due in part to the financial and operational risk \nassociated with facilities needed to interconnect large load customers, the NYTOs are well-\npositioned to help develop these provisions. \nSecond, the NYTOs will work with the NYISO and stakeholders on the scope of the Load \nSIS, including modifications to account for the unique characteristics of certain large loads.  \nSpecifically, for large loads with unique load characteristics – such as those with arcuate or non-\nlinear load profiles – the standard Load SIS scope might not be enough to thoroughly assess \ninterconnection impacts.  Additional specialized screenings may be required at an early stage of \nthe study process – for example, unit interaction factor analysis – to determine whether a large \nload can interconnect to the transmission system without requiring Network Upgrades.  The FPA"},{"page":24,"startToken":6848,"endToken":7128,"text":"24 \nsection 205 filing will address whether such SIS scope modifications should be: (a) identified and \napplied at the Load SIS stage; or (b) addressed in the second phase of the study process, during \nwhich alternative upgrade evaluations are conducted.  The NYTOs intend to develop this proposal \nfurther during the abeyance period in consultation with the NYISO and the other parties. \nThird, the NYTOs intend to address an appropriate timeline for the Facilities Study process, \nincluding provisions addressing the timeline within which the Connecting Transmission Owner \nwould complete the Facilities Study and deliver the study report and cost estimates to the Eligible \nCustomer, as well as milestones and readiness requirements applicable to the Eligible Customer \nor large load customer, as applicable, during the Facilities Study process.  The NYTOs intend to \ndevelop the specific timeline provisions in consultation with the NYISO and stakeholders during \nthe abeyance period. \nFourth, the NYTOs intend to address whether and how the Facilities Study process should \nrequire evaluation of alternative transmission technologies as a potential substitute for traditional \nNetwork Upgrades identified to accommodate a large load interconnection.  Because the \nConnecting Transmission Owner develops the cost estimates and study report delivered to the \nEligible Customer as part of the Facilities Study, the NYTOs are well-positioned to propose Tariff \nprovisions requiring such an evaluation and, where traditional Network Upgrades are proposed \ninstead, a clear explanation in the study report of why alternative transmission technologies were \nnot selected.53 \nAs with the generator interconnection process, these Facilities Study provisions require \nsignificant collaboration, handoffs, and coordination among the NYTOs and NYISO.  While the \nsubstance of a Connecting Transmission Owner’s Facilities Study is primarily for the Connecting \n \n53  \nId. PP 67-68."},{"page":25,"startToken":7128,"endToken":7394,"text":"25 \nTransmission Owner to determine, the NYTOs recognize that, as a practical matter, they will \ndepend on certain NYISO inputs before the NYTOs can proceed with particular aspects of the \nFacilities Study.  Such inputs include the development of base cases, identification of bulk system \nviolations, and the results of the alternate evaluation process described.  Close coordination on the \ntiming of those inputs is essential, and the NYTOs accordingly intend to work closely with the \nNYISO to establish coordinated timelines and information-sharing protocols that account for this \ninterdependency.   \n2. \nPro Forma Interconnection Agreement  \nThe Commission observed that the large load interconnection agreement is not included in \nthe NYISO Tariff and is not subject to sufficiently clear or consistent pro forma provisions.54   \nAs the Commission has recognized,55 the absence of pro forma provisions in the \ninterconnection agreement between the Transmission Owner and the Eligible Customer \nundermines the Transmission Owner’s ability to enforce the operational and cost-recovery \nrequirements that arise from the study process.  The Transmission Owner – not NYISO – is the \ncounterparty to the load interconnection agreement, and it is the Transmission Owner and its \ncustomers that bear the direct financial exposure to cost-shifting risk if the terms of that agreement \nare not standardized and clearly specified. \nAs noted, the NYPSC commenced a proceeding to review large load interconnection and \nrelated service requirements and cost allocation.  Ideally, the NYPSC-developed requirements will \nbe acceptable to the Commission for implementation without having to address any conflicts and \njurisdictional or preemption issues.  Subject to consultation with NYISO and DPS, the NYTOs \n \n54  \nId. PP 29, 90.  \n55  \nId. P 90."},{"page":26,"startToken":7394,"endToken":7669,"text":"26 \nwill develop pro forma terms and conditions that mirror terms approved by the NYPSC and are \notherwise consistent across the state and federal levels. \nThe NYTOs anticipate that the FPA section 205 filing will propose pro forma agreement \nand/or Tariff provisions to create a legally enforceable framework that addresses the operational \nrights and obligations of all relevant parties with respect to the large load.  Regardless of the \nultimate form of the agreement(s) or Tariff provisions adopted, the NYTOs will work with the \nNYISO on an FPA section 205 filing to address, inter alia,  the following rights and obligations: \n(a) the NYISO’s and Connecting Transmission Owner’s rights to curtail, ramp down, and interrupt \nthe large load; (b) the same rights of any Affected Transmission Owner, where applicable; and (c) \na binding commitment of the large load to comply with all applicable operational requirements.  \nThe ultimate agreement should be designed to ensure that all parties with a need to (i.e., the \nNYISO, the Connecting Transmission Owner, and/or the Affected Transmission Owner) can \nenforce these rights and large load customer obligations. \nThe NYTOs also intend to address the structure of the interconnection agreement or \nagreements that will govern the relationship among the NYISO, the Connecting Transmission \nOwner, and the large load.   The precise form of the agreement, agreements, or other Tariff changes \nhas not yet been determined and will be the subject of further consultation between the NYTOs \nand NYISO during the abeyance period.  The NYTOs commit to working with the NYISO and \nstakeholders on a legally enforceable framework addressing the rights and obligations of the \nparties with respect to these important matters."},{"page":27,"startToken":7669,"endToken":7969,"text":"27 \nC. \nOperating Terms Applicable to Non-Firm Transmission Withdrawal Service \nand Paired or Behind-the-Meter Generation Supplies \nThe NYISO is responsible for the reliability of the New York bulk power system.56  The \nNYTOs are responsible for the reliable operation of their systems, including local (non-bulk) \ntransmission and distribution systems.57  The NYTOs also have certain obligations under New \nYork State law concerning the reliable operation of their systems.  With potentially large increases \nin the amount of new large loads on the system, and new non-firm or contract demand services, \nnew operating requirements will be needed, as the Commission recognizes.58  The NYTOs will \ncoordinate with the NYISO to develop operating requirements for loads that have chosen Non-\nFirm Transmission Withdrawal Service where the service level is less than the maximum potential \nwithdrawal of the load and for supply paired with load, or that is behind-the-meter generation and \nrequests Energy Resource Interconnection Service (“ERIS”) and/or Capacity Resource \nInterconnection Service (“CRIS”) at a level below the maximum potential injection.  Associated \nlarge load customers and suppliers will be required to satisfy operating requirements allowing for \ndispatch, ramping, curtailment, interruption, and/or disconnection on an automated, NYISO-\ncontrolled or Connecting Transmission Owner/Affected Transmission Owner-controlled, and \nremote basis, depending on the circumstances.59  \nThe NYTOs will work with the NYISO to develop a legally enforceable framework among \nthe NYISO, NYTO, large load, and associated supplier – likely in the form of one or more pro \nforma agreements and/or Tariff provisions – to provide for operations requirements.  In some \ncases, the successful installation and testing of system protection schemes will be necessary at \n \n56  \nSee, e.g., ISO Agreement, § 6.02; NYISO-TO Agreement § 3.01.   \n57  \nSee, e.g., NYISO-TO Agreement § 2.03.  \n58  \nShow Cause Order at P 109. \n59  \nSee id. P 113."},{"page":28,"startToken":7969,"endToken":8265,"text":"28 \nenergization and as a condition of continued operation.  System protection and control schemes, \nwhere they can be deployed consistent with applicable reliability requirements, are tailored to the \nspecific characteristics of the load, supply, and the bulk power system and local transmission and \ndistribution system needs to maintain reliability in the areas of the system affected by the \ninterconnection and service requirements.  Each system protection and operations scheme will \nneed to satisfy applicable reliability requirements as defined in the NYISO procedures. \nIV. \nREQUEST FOR EXPEDITED COMMISSION ACTION AND SHORTENED \nCOMMENT PERIOD \nThe NYTOs respectfully request that the Commission act on this request on or before \nAugust 13, 2026, to provide the NYTOs with certainty regarding the need to file a response to the \nShow Cause Order and to allow the NYTOs to focus their efforts on coordinating with the NYISO \nand stakeholders on an FPA section 205 filing.  Moreover, consistent with Rule 213(d) of the \nCommission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,60 the NYTOs respectfully request that the \nCommission establish a 5-day comment period for any party wishing to respond to this request.  \nV. \nCOMMUNICATIONS \nAll communications and correspondence regarding this filing should be forwarded to the \nfollowing individuals, whose names should be placed on the Commission’s service list:61 \n \n60  \n18 C.F.R. § 385.213(d)(1)(i) (“If a motion requests an extension of time or a shortened time period for action, \nthen answers to the motion to extend or shorten the time period shall be made within 5 days after the motion \nis filed, unless otherwise ordered.”). \n61  \nThe NYTOs respectfully request waiver of 18 C.F.R. § 385.203(b)(3) to allow more than two individuals to \nbe designated for service on the official service list in this proceeding."},{"page":29,"startToken":8265,"endToken":8493,"text":"29 \nWilliam R. Derasmo \nC. Dixon Wallace III \nAntonia M. Douglas \nTROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP \n401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000 \nWashington, DC 20004 \n(202) 274-2886 \nwilliam.derasmo@troutman.com \ndixon.wallace@troutman.com \nantonia.douglas@troutman.com \n \nMarina Chu \nRegulatory Attorney – Regulatory Affairs \nCentral Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation \n284 South Avenue \nPoughkeepsie, NY 12601 \nmchu@cenhud.com \n \nPhillip D. Demanchick Jr. \nSenior Counsel \nNew York State Electric & Gas Corporation \nRochester Gas and Electric Corporation \n180 South Clinton Avenue \nRochester, NY 14604 \nphillip.demanchick@avangrid.com\nChristopher J. Novak \nSenior Counsel \nNational Grid USA \n170 Data Drive \nWaltham, MA 02451 \nchris.novak@nationalgrid.com \n \n \nLauren A. Jones \nAssociate General Counsel \nJoshua A. Kirstein \nSenior Attorney \nConsolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. \nOrange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. \n4 Irving Place \nNew York, NY 10003 \njonesl@coned.com \nkirsteinj@coned.com \n \nVI. \nCONCLUSION \nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the NYTOs respectfully request that the \nCommission grant a full 90-day abeyance for the aspects of the Show Cause Order referenced \nabove, including the deadline to respond to the Show Cause Order, commencing as of the deadline \nto respond to the Show Cause Order, to allow the NYTOs the time necessary to develop in \ncoordination with the NYISO, NYPSC, and stakeholders, and file a comprehensive, regionally-\ntailored FPA section 205 filing that addresses the concerns identified in the Show Cause Order."},{"page":30,"startToken":8493,"endToken":8587,"text":"30 \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n/s/ William R. Derasmo  \nWilliam R. Derasmo \nC. Dixon Wallace III \nAntonia M. Douglas \nTROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP \n \nCounsel to the New York Transmission Owners \n \n \n \n \n \n       \n/s/ Marina Chu \nMarina Chu \nCentral Hudson Gas & Electric \nCorporation \n \n/s/ Phillip D. Demanchick Jr. \nPhillip D. Demanchick Jr. \nNew York State Electric & Gas \nCorporation \nRochester Gas and Electric Corporation\n \n/s/ Christopher J. Novak \nChristopher J. Novak \nNational Grid USA \n \n/s/ Joshua A. Kirstein \nLauren A. Jones \nJoshua A. Kirstein \nConsolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. \nOrange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. \n \nDated: August 3, 2026"},{"page":31,"startToken":8587,"endToken":8655,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \n \nI hereby certify that on this 3rd day of August, 2026, I have served a copy of the foregoing \ndocument on the official service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary for the captioned \nproceeding.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n/s/ Daryl A. Bascus \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nDaryl A. Bascus \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFERC Energy Specialist \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nTROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n401 9th Street NW, Suite 1000 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nWashington, DC 20004 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n(202) 274-1949 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \ndaryl.bascus@troutman.com"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":3,"endAt":172,"startToken":0,"endToken":731},{"p":3,"at":172,"title":"I. BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":176,"startToken":731,"endToken":732},{"p":3,"at":176,"title":"BACKGROUND","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":188,"startToken":732,"endToken":733},{"p":3,"at":188,"title":"A. The Show Cause Order","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":1228,"startToken":733,"endToken":1750},{"p":6,"at":1228,"title":"B. The NYTOs’ Independent Filing Rights Under the NYISO-TO Agreement","method":"printed heading","endPage":8,"endAt":1416,"startToken":1750,"endToken":2354},{"p":8,"at":1416,"title":"II. REQUEST FOR ABEYANCE","method":"printed heading","endPage":11,"endAt":693,"startToken":2354,"endToken":3097},{"p":11,"at":693,"title":"III. DESCRIPTION OF ANTICIPATED FPA SECTION 205 FILING","method":"printed heading","endPage":13,"endAt":4,"startToken":3097,"endToken":3618},{"p":13,"at":4,"title":"A. Cost Recovery and Transmission Service Charges","method":"printed heading","endPage":20,"endAt":1279,"startToken":3618,"endToken":5914},{"p":20,"at":1279,"title":"B. Large Load Interconnection Procedures and Agreements","method":"printed heading","endPage":27,"endAt":4,"startToken":5914,"endToken":7670},{"p":27,"at":4,"title":"C. Operating Terms Applicable to Non-Firm Transmission Withdrawal Service","method":"printed heading","endPage":28,"endAt":579,"startToken":7670,"endToken":8050},{"p":28,"at":579,"title":"IV. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED COMMISSION ACTION AND SHORTENED","method":"printed heading","endPage":28,"endAt":1213,"startToken":8050,"endToken":8153},{"p":28,"at":1213,"title":"V. COMMUNICATIONS","method":"printed heading","endPage":29,"endAt":24,"startToken":8153,"endToken":8269},{"p":29,"at":24,"title":"C. Dixon Wallace III","method":"printed heading","endPage":29,"endAt":979,"startToken":8269,"endToken":8405},{"p":29,"at":979,"title":"VI. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":29,"endAt":984,"startToken":8405,"endToken":8406},{"p":29,"at":984,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":30,"endAt":88,"startToken":8406,"endToken":8503},{"p":30,"at":88,"title":"C. Dixon Wallace III","method":"printed heading","endPage":31,"endAt":0,"startToken":8503,"endToken":8587},{"p":31,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":31,"endAt":526,"startToken":8587,"endToken":8655}]}