Amid a flood of comments last week on ISO-NE’s proposal to delay elimination of its contentious minimum offer price rule, the most significant came from Massachusetts’ top energy official (ER22-1528).

In a letter to FERC, Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides expanded on the state’s position, separating it from a coalition of the other New England states by calling on the commission to order the immediate removal of the MOPR.

“The commonwealth supports elimination of the MOPR but opposes an approach to elimination that prolongs the effects of the MOPR any longer than necessary,” Theoharides wrote. “I urge the commission to use its regulatory authority under the Federal Power Act to direct changes to the ISO-NE’s tariff by taking the fewest risks and least time necessary to eliminate the MOPR.”

The New England states, through the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE), had previously said that they would not oppose the two-year transition proposal put forward by the grid operator. It was a near-consensus (barring New Hampshire) position that has been cited repeatedly by ISO-NE, serving as a powerful message to other stakeholders and helping secure enough votes for the grid operator’s proposal to ultimately pass through NEPOOL.

NESCOE reiterated its position in a comment, noting that its lack of opposition to the delay comes with the major caveat that the group will “fiercely oppose any attempts to extend the deadline for full MOPR reform beyond [Forward Capacity Auction] 19.”

And Connecticut stayed in line with the NESCOE position, writing in its own comments that it does not oppose the delay because of worries about the “fragile state of the ISO-NE markets” and the possible negative effects of immediately removing the MOPR.

NESCOE declined to comment specifically on Massachusetts’ new stance, saying that its views are reflected in the filing.

Protests and Support

The states’ comments were among more than 200 submitted by advocacy groups, companies and individuals ahead of last Thursday’s deadline on an issue that has gathered an unusual amount of scrutiny for the grid operator. (See ISO-NE Sends MOPR Filing to FERC, Teeing up Big Decision.)

A large consortium of environmental groups filed a protest asking FERC to order the MOPR be immediately removed.

“ISO-NE’s [FPA] Section 205 filing offers the commission a chance to reconsider the unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory rates that have resulted from the string of commission orders establishing ISO-NE’s current tariff and MOPR rules,” the groups wrote.

They said that keeping the MOPR in place for another two years will keep state-sponsored clean energy resources from clearing the capacity market and impose higher costs on consumers. They also challenged the credence of the reliability worries that have been cited by ISO-NE in extending the MOPR for two more years.

“Despite the ISO’s substantial analytical capabilities and unique access to data — all funded by ratepayers — the ISO’s case for reliability needs contained in its filing is limited to extremely general and speculative concerns about capacity accreditation, retirement of existing resources and potential commercial-operation delays applicable to all new entry in the region,” the protest says. The American Council on Renewable Energy also filed its own separate protest.

Writing in support of the ISO-NE proposal were groups representing power generators and suppliers in New England and nationally, as well as several individual companies.

“The filing strikes a just and reasonable balance among a wide range of stakeholder and ISO-NE interests; is supported by a large majority of NEPOOL, including supporting votes from each of the six NEPOOL sectors; and is the product of input from, and is unopposed by, the New England States Committee on Electricity,” the New England Power Generators Association wrote. “This alignment is remarkable on a market design issue that has compelled countless pleadings and disagreements among stakeholders and policymakers in New England.”

The Electric Power Supply Association concurred and called the filing a “balanced set of revisions.”

Filing together, the three generation companies that had originated the proposal to delay elimination of the MOPR by two years — Calpine, Cogentrix Energy Power Management and Vistra — defended the ISO-NE proposal as a necessary safeguard that was developed and approved through a sturdy stakeholder process.

“It is critical that ISO-NE adopt a transition mechanism that appropriately balances the various interests of consumers and investors while making it easier for sponsored policy resources to enter the [Forward Capacity Market]. The specific transition mechanism ISO-NE has proposed accomplishes those goals in a just and reasonable manner,” they wrote.