Docket No. EL26-45-000
I agree with today’s order that ISO-NE’s proposed reforms will address the Tariff gaps identified in the Show Cause Order. ISO-NE also requested guidance on whether to add a particular remedial provision to its Tariff, and while today’s order declines to provide that guidance on that specific provision, I write separately to express my views on this issue generally.
It is simply not enough for tariffs to contain sound substantive provisions. Rather, tariffs also need sound remedial provisions. That is, regulated entities must proactively anticipate that things will not always go according to plan. Unless tariffs include provisions to fairly and efficiently resolve those situations, serious but fixable errors can go unaddressed, while regulated entities’ and the Commission’s hands remain unnecessarily tied.
For that reason, I encourage utilities—and especially RTOs/ISOs—to consider adopting more robust remedial provisions in their tariffs that unlock flexibility to correct minor errors. For example, as I have mentioned previously,1 and as the Commission has encouraged,2 breaching parties could have discrete cure periods for fixing errors. Cure periods allow regulated entities to remedy deficiencies, such as missed deadlines, or other errors as a matter of course—all without having to come to the Commission for relief. In addition, tariffs could initially refer disagreements over certain errors to internal dispute resolution processes. Last, tariffs could specify that regulated entities can swiftly correct certain errors themselves,3 or that the Commission can waive particular tariff provisions.4
I support targeted provisions like these because they can help overcome some of the challenges that we have encountered with waiver requests in recent years. Time and time again, the Commission’s hands have been tied by the filed rate doctrine, often leaving the Commission with no choice but to deny otherwise valid, and often unopposed, waiver requests. In other circumstances, tariffs that included cure provisions could have avoided contentious proceedings in which the passage of time exacerbated the consequences of otherwise minor errors.
These outcomes are not inevitable. Tariffs should be clear and promote compliance, but they should also provide mechanisms for quickly resolving errors and missteps to ensure that parties are not unduly penalized for inadvertent mistakes that cause no third-party harm. Ultimately, this approach supports efficient market operations and delivers better outcomes for consumers.
To be sure, no remedial provision is a silver bullet. But I nonetheless encourage ISO-NE and other transmission providers to consider adding remedial provisions to their tariffs. Doing so can help resolve uncontroversial errors more fairly and efficiently.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
- 1Urb. Grid Solar Projects, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 189 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2024) (Rosner, Comm’r, concurring).
- 2Waiver of Tariff Requirements, 193 FERC ¶ 61,135, at P 23 (2025).
- 3FERC ¶ 61,185, at P 26.
- 4See, e.g., SPP Tariff, attach. AE (Integrated Marketplace), § 10.1.1(3)(a); PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, OATT, attach. DD, § 6.6(g) (Offer Requirement for Capacity Resources), § 6.6(g); NYISO Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff, § 7.4 (Billing Disputes); CAISO Tariff, § 37.8.10 (Review Of Determination).