Eversource Energy has increased its five-year capital investment plan by $2.3 billion, an increase largely driven by investments in its gas and electric distribution systems.
The company now plans to spend about $26.5 billion over the next five years; $1.5 billion of the spending is incremental to the period overlapping the company’s previous five-year plan for 2025-2029. These totals include only projects with a “clear line of sight from a regulatory approval perspective,” CEO Joe Nolan said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call Feb. 13.
Most of the spending is intended “to address aging infrastructure needs under our multiyear projects such as the Electric Sector Modernization Plan and the Underground Cable Modernization Program, as well as complying with applicable state safety regulations,” Nolan said.
Of the $1.5 billion, Eversource plans to spend $696 million on electric distribution, $523 million on gas distribution and $233 million on transmission. For 2026 to 2030, electric distribution accounts for 43% of investment, followed by transmission at 27% and natural gas distribution at 26%.
Eversource forecasts annual transmission capital investments to increase by about 33% by 2030, though this number will likely grow as the company adds projects to its investment plan.
Increased spending on infrastructure has played a large role in driving up consumer energy costs in recent years, a trend that appears likely to continue into the foreseeable future. In Massachusetts, grid upgrades to prepare for the clean energy transition are a major cost driver, while upgrades to replace aging and deteriorating infrastructure on both the gas and electric systems also are a major contributor to costs. (See Conflict Brewing over Gas Transition in Massachusetts.)
Nolan said Eversource has ramped up its rollout of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) in Massachusetts, installing more than 100,000 smart meters over the past year. He said the company plans to upgrade more than 1.5 million meters in the state. Once in place, regulators hope AMI help will enable incentives for demand flexibility.
Eversource, however, continues to hold off on investments in AMI in Connecticut. The company has clashed with regulators in the state in recent years and has expressed concern about the AMI cost recovery mechanism.
“We’re optimistic that we can at least get additional clarity around … the rules of the road down there to make it fair for us to make that investment.” Nolan said. “But we’re not going to make the investment until we feel comfortable with the recovery mechanism. … We’ve got a lot of money on the line down there right now.”
Regarding the Revolution Wind project, he said Eversource finished work on the onshore substation for the project in late 2025.
While Eversource sold its 50% share of Revolution to Global Infrastructure Partners in 2024, the company remains on the hook for construction cost increases. Eversource’s liability will end once the project achieves commercial operations, which project developer Ørsted forecasts to occur in the second half of the year.
In Ørsted’s earnings call on Feb. 6, the company said construction on Revolution is about 87% complete, with electricity beginning to be delivered in the coming weeks. (See Revolution Wind Weeks Away from Generating Power — Maybe.)
It’s been a little more than a year since Lanny Nickell was selected as SPP’s next CEO and began a three-month transition with his predecessor, Barbara Sugg.
What has he learned since then? He says it’s that the issues and challenges facing the industry aren’t getting any easier.
“That shouldn’t be a surprise necessarily, but the pressure is still on, and we know what that pressure looks like,” he said in an interview with RTO Insider. “It’s about resource adequacy. It’s about speed to power, accelerating the ability to build transmission, the ability to build generation. Those challenges still exist despite what I believe to be innovative and creative efforts to address those concerns and those issues and those challenges.”
Those challenges have forced SPP’s staff and their stakeholders to step up the pace. No longer can the RTO be said to be a follower among its peers, preferring to learn from others’ mistakes.
Nickell is one of the featured speakers at the Yes Energy EMPOWER 26 conference Feb. 26, where he shares the main stage with CAISO CEO Elliot Mainzer.
Faced with the same demand from data centers and crypto miners as other grid operators, SPP responded by putting together a 30-person team to recommend a process to interconnect the large loads. About three months later, staff had devised a method to interconnect what they called high-impact large loads; the method received stakeholder and board approval.
“I’ve learned that we can, in fact, do things faster and still maintain our very inclusive and collaborative stakeholder environment,” said Nickell, who calls SPP’s stakeholder-driven approach with its members its “secret sauce.” (See Nickell: SPP’s Culture Paves Way for its 2025 Success.)
“We’ve never moved that fast as an organization before,” he said, “and I think we’re getting a pretty high degree of support from the stakeholders as we’ve done those things. Now that we’ve demonstrated it, it gives me more hope and optimism that we can do it again.”
That is what Nickell calls “boldly leading.”
“I mean, that’s probably the biggest change is just trying to incorporate that into the culture,” he said. “We’ve had to transform, and we’ve needed to become more of a performance-based culture. I’d characterize that as a subtle shift in some ways and a large shift in others, but a lot of our employees are excited about that.
“It’s setting very clear goals for each and every employee. The downside is it’s dealing with those who aren’t able to perform at the level they need to in order for this company to survive and succeed. It’s just raising the expectations of what every employee needs to be able to do in order for them to not only be successful personally, but also to help SPP be successful.”
So far, so good. SPP has completed all but a handful of the 42 milestones attached to its three corporate goals: western expansion, continued resource adequacy risk mitigation and accelerated generator and load interconnections — see recently FERC-approved high-impact large loads, or HILLs and HILL generator assessment, and now conditional HILLs policies.
The grid operator has been involved in the West over the past decade. On April 1, it will become the first U.S. RTO to provide full market services in both the Eastern and Western Interconnections when eight utilities from Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming become members.
SPP’s presence will become even larger in September 2027 when Markets+ goes live. The market and its bundle of day-ahead services have drawn almost 40 potential market participants, with operations focused in the Pacific Northwest, Mountain West and Desert Southwest regions.
The grid operator’s staff says Markets+ offers Western entities a choice between it and CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). Nickell says when SPP first began its pre-pandemic forays into the West, it did so because of interest expressed by various Western stakeholders.
“We didn’t go out there trying to conquer the world,” he said. “We went because we were asked and invited and we brought forward a proposal and we said, ‘Competition is good because it makes the competing parties better, right?’”
It also creates winners and losers, right?
“It makes both parties, or however many there are, try to get better,” Nickell said. As an example, he offers kudos to CAISO for making changes to their governance model that address one of the main concerns other Western stakeholders had about EDAM.
“I know that has made them better,” Nickell said. “You have to ask yourself the question, ‘Would that have happened without SPP being a competitive force in the West?’ And I think we need to remain in the West, because once the competition goes away, the incentives and the motivations to get better also go away.”
The RTO’s ambitious efforts have led it to roll out a $150 million project that will create about 190 new engineering, IT and administrative jobs. That will push SPP’s headcount to about 1,000.
Obviously, it’s not the same company Nickell joined in 1997 after five years at the Public Service Company of Oklahoma. It was his first job after graduating from Tulsa University with an electrical engineering degree. He was born and raised in Arkansas, and it was the only time he left the state.
Now, Nickell has embarked on a concerted effort to raise awareness of SPP’s value proposition — it says it has the lowest wholesale energy prices of any RTO and that its members derived $3.62 billion in benefits (a 20-to-1 return) in 2023 — and explain the generational challenge the industry faces. He has visited politicians and regulators across much of the RTO’s current 14-state footprint.
“We have to set the narrative before somebody else sets it. That’s still a big goal of mine, and it’s probably the goal that I would like to see even more progress being made,” he said. “I’ve talked to my peers at the other RTOs, and I think we’re all on the same page. We provide tremendous value, and I think the members of those ISOs and RTOs understand that.
“It’s more than our members that need to understand it,” he added. “We’ve got to expand the audience to key decision makers, legislators, the general public. … [They] need to have a stronger appreciation for the value that we provide.”
As a CEO, Nickell says he often is asked what keeps him up at night.
His answer?
“We’ve done some great things, done a lot of really cool things this first year, but the question that keeps me up at night is, ‘Have we done enough?’”
Nickell’s appearance with CAISO’s Mainzer: “The Race to Shape Western Power Markets,” will occur Feb. 26 on the main stage at Yes Energy’s EMPOWER 2026 conference in Boulder, Colo. To learn more about EMPOWER visit empower.yesenergy.com.
MISO on Feb. 10 unveiled its $8.8 billion 2026 Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP 26), once again made pricier by load growth.
The proposal contains nearly $3.1 billion directly to address load growth, with much of it originating in the Midwest.
At a MISO Central subregional planning meeting, planning engineer Scott Goodwin told stakeholders that projects to address large load interconnection; age and condition; and local reliability and needs make up the majority of the portfolio, about $5.9 billion. Of that, large loads account for nearly $3 billion in projects.
By comparison, baseline reliability projects — those deemed as necessary by the RTO to maintain system reliability — make up a nearly $1.8 billion share of the total spending.
Overall, $1.3 billion of the projects are classified as expedited.
The figures are certain to change before the plan is put before the MISO Board of Directors for approval in early December. The RTO holds three rounds of subregional planning meetings annually, in February, June and September.
American Electric Power says it is “rooted deep in innovation” and “ready to meet unprecedented customer demand” that will result in “significant infrastructure investment” while it continues to have strong financial results.
“We are in the midst of a generational load growth phenomenon throughout our diversified service territory,” CEO Bill Fehrman told financial analysts during its Feb. 12 year-end earnings call.
Pointing to hot spots in Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas, Fehrman said AEP has 56 GW of “firm, incremental, contracted load,” doubling what it reported just three months prior. He said the gigawatts are not speculative, as they are back by signed customer agreements. (See Xcel Energy, AEP Plan to Invest $132B Through 2030.)
“Meeting this demand must be done responsibly,” he told analysts. “It is critically important that costs associated with these large loads are allocated fairly and the right investments are made for the long-term success of our grid.”
The Columbus, Ohio-based company says it’s working with federal and state lawmakers and regulators to streamline the connection of new energy resources to serve the large loads and to protect residential customers from extra costs. It has helped passed large load tariffs in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.
Fehrman said AEP’s “unmatched scale” of transmission “continues to be a defining advantage for AEP.” The company owns or operates nearly 90% of the nation’s 765-kV infrastructure, with more than 2,100 miles of lines. That will increase with three recently awarded 765 projects: $2.5 billion in SPP, $1.5 billion in PJM and $500 million in MISO.
AEP said it has a long-term strategic partnership with contracting firm Quanta Services to support its 765-kV transmission buildout. It also has secured 10 GW of capacity from major gas turbine manufacturers.
The company reported year-end earnings of $3.58 billion ($6.70/share), bettering its 2024 year-end performance of $2.97 billion ($5.60/share). Earnings for the quarter came in at $582 million ($1.09/share), compared to $664 million ($1.25/share) for the same period a year ago. Its adjusted earnings per share of $5.97 beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $5.90.
AEP also reaffirmed its 2026 operating earnings outlook of $6.15 to $6.45/share and its long-term operating earnings growth rate of 7 to 9%.
The company’s share price closed at $129.94 on Feb. 13, up 6.3% from its pre-earnings close of $122.25.
It was a love of international travel that put CAISO CEO Elliot Mainzer on the path to working in the power sector.
“During college, I spent a semester in India, where I was exposed to the social and environmental challenges associated with large‑scale energy development. That experience sparked my interest in the electricity industry,” Mainzer said in an interview with RTO Insider.
While pursuing a master’s degree at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Mainzer spent a summer working at the Energy and Development Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
“My research there led me to study the deregulation of the U.S. electricity industry and the potential for clean technologies to play an expanding role,” he said. “By the time I finished graduate school in 1998, I was ready to fully commit, and I have spent the past 25 years working to advance reliability, affordability, innovation and environmental sustainability in the power sector.”
Mainzer is one of the featured speakers at the Yes Energy EMPOWER 26 conference Feb. 26, where he will share the stage with SPP CEO Lanny Nickell.
Mainzer’s entry into the industry was as manager of power structuring and then renewable power trading at Enron, the now-infamous company that would become synonymous with the manipulation of California’s partially deregulated electricity market, actions that precipitated the Western energy crisis of 2000/01 and its accompanying blackouts. The crisis resulted in the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric and the near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison, while costing California and its ratepayers more than $40 billion. Enron itself declared bankruptcy in December 2001.
“I joined Enron as an associate in 1998, directly out of graduate school, and like many others, I was hopeful it would lead to a path of opportunity and success,” Mainzer said. “That dream ended when I was laid off — along with many others — on Pearl Harbor Day in 2001. The lessons from Enron’s collapse have stayed with me for many years.”
Those lessons included “the importance of integrity, honesty and transparency in business — principles I have tried to uphold throughout my career.” But Mainzer said he also took away “some elements of Enron’s business model, such as innovation, creativity and a willingness to challenge conventional thinking.”
“I continue to feel empathy for the many people who lost their livelihoods at Enron and its subsidiaries. It was a very sad chapter. However, I believe I have been able to move forward and make meaningful and lasting contributions to the industry by working hard and staying true to my values,” he said.
From Enron to BPA
Shortly after, Mainzer landed at the Bonneville Power Administration, where he rose through the ranks before assuming the top job — administrator — in January 2014, a position he held for six-and-a-half years.
“Working at BPA taught me two critical lessons that I’ve applied consistently at CAISO. The first was the importance of robust stakeholder engagement — whether in rate cases, fish and wildlife activities, or energy‑efficiency program development. We also used that approach to bring BPA into the [CAISO] Western Energy Imbalance Market,” which the agency joined in 2022 after signing an implementation agreement in 2019.
Mainzer said the second lesson “was the importance of collaborative working relationships in achieving reliability, affordability and environmental sustainability goals.”
He noted that while many people associate BPA with the Columbia River hydroelectric dams, the agency actually owns and operates a grid that constitutes about 70% of the grid in the Northwest, while the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation operate and maintain the dams for which the agency markets the generation.
“Numerous state and local entities also influence policy and operations on the Columbia River, so building constructive relationships and strengthening coordination were essential to keeping the lights on while meeting environmental responsibilities. That collaboration model at BPA proved to be excellent training for CAISO,” where he took over as CEO in 2020.
“From Day 1, it was clear that I needed to work effectively with the governor’s office, the CPUC, CEC, CARB, local regulators, public and private utilities, and independent power producers to achieve resource adequacy and transmission planning goals. I’ve also worked closely with organizations across the West to expand the footprint of the Western Energy Imbalance Market and the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM).”
Challenges Ahead for CAISO
Asked about the biggest challenges and tasks facing CAISO over the next few years, Mainzer pointed to “continued progress on resource adequacy and transmission energization,” citing the 33 GW of new resources California has brought online over the past five years, which includes more than 15 GW of battery storage.
Mainzer said CAISO will continue to refine how it manages its interconnection queue and transmission planning, “which will help maintain momentum on resource onboarding and transmission energization.”
“We are particularly excited about continued progress on major interregional transmission partnerships, including the SunZia line into New Mexico/Arizona and the TransWest Express line into Wyoming — both of which are being developed under the Subscriber Participating Transmission Owner model — as well as further progress on the SWIP-North line, following approvals from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada,” he said. (See Nevada Regulators Approve SWIP-North Construction Permit.)
And CAISO is focused on the launch of EDAM on May 1, with PacifiCorp coming on as its first member, followed by Portland General Electric in the fall. Mainzer said the ISO is committed to expanding EDAM and “demonstrating its significant reliability and economic benefits,” while continuing to support the development of the Regional Organization for Western Energy (ROWE) — the new body established to provide independent governance over EDAM and WEIM. (See Pathways Takes Key Step Toward Establishing ROWE.)
Over the longer term, he said the ISO “will work closely with load‑serving entities to ensure sufficient power and transmission capacity for large loads — especially data centers — while also pursuing innovative solutions, including AI applications, to make better use of existing resources and expedite interconnection processes.”
‘Clear Opportunity’
2025 offered a climax in the competition for participants between EDAM and SPP’s Markets+, with EDAM winning the larger share of load in the Western Interconnection, while Markets+ still earned significant commitments — most notably from BPA. (See BPA Chooses Markets+ over EDAM.)
While that outcome appeared to dash the hopes of industry stakeholders who’ve long advocated for development of a single Western market aligned with CAISO’s markets, Mainzer still expresses hope on that front.
He thinks passage in 2025 of the California law allowing the ISO to engage with the ROWE provides a “a clear opportunity to operate a largely seamless Western electricity market under fully independent governance … an opportunity that policymakers, utilities and other decision‑makers across the West should carefully evaluate in the months ahead, given what is at stake for regional reliability and affordability.”
With EDAM launching in May, Mainzer said he remains “hopeful that entities across the West will closely watch our progress and ultimately conclude that a single market is in the best interest of their ratepayers. In the meantime, we will continue to keep communication channels open across the region.”
‘Woodshedding’
Asked about his alternative dream job if he weren’t working in the electricity sector, Mainzer again pointed to his love of travel — alongside a “passion” for photography.
“If I were to pursue an alternative career, it would likely be as a photojournalist, with the dream assignment being an opportunity to work for National Geographic,” he said.
A saxophonist and “dedicated student of jazz theory and history,” Mainzer said he might also enjoy a part-time gig as a professional jazz musician.
“Though I would have a lot of woodshedding to do before that became possible!”
Mainzer’s appearance with SPP’s Nickell, “The Race to Shape Western Power Markets,” will occur Feb. 26 on the main stage at Yes Energy’s EMPOWER 2026 conference in Boulder, Colo. To learn more about EMPOWER visit yesenergy.com.
New York has finalized regulations intended to reduce the timeline and cost of modernizing the state’s grid.
The Public Service Commission on Feb. 12 approved rules (Case 24-M-0433) drafted in response to the state’s 2024 Renewable Action Project Interconnection and Deployment (RAPID) Act.
It is a continuation of earlier efforts to make New York an easier place to develop the infrastructure that is central to state leaders’ vision of an electrified and decarbonized state.
By state officials’ own admission, New York has been a slow and expensive place to carry out the politically fraught business of clean energy and transmission development.
Because of this, along with the national and global factors weighing on energy development, the state is well behind schedule meeting the statutory goals of its landmark 2019 climate law, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).
The first big milestone of the CLCPA is 70% renewable energy by 2030. As of 2024, the state was at 23.6%, and renewables development only got harder in 2025. (See N.Y. Reports Minimal Increase in Renewable Power.)
An early step to address this was the creation in 2020 of the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES), designed to consolidate the many state regulatory layers facing large-scale renewable proposals and, if needed, to override local regulatory authority.
The RAPID Act expanded ORES by giving it similar authority over transmission projects and renaming it the Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission. (See NY Energy Summit: Making the RAPID Act Live up to its Name.)
It remains known as ORES, commonly spoken as OH-rezz, rather than ORESET, which could be pronounced as oh-RE-set, which might convey the wrong message.
Voices on all sides of the renewable energy landscape have said ORES has been successful but not perfect in its efforts, and some have wished it could do more or less, depending on their feelings about renewables and community self-governance.
The RAPID Act lets ORES do more.
The PSC said the regulations it approved Feb. 12 will reduce permitting time for transmission projects by up to 50%.
“These regulations will be essential to the state’s need to integrate new, clean generation and replace our existing aging infrastructure to meet rising electric demand,” PSC Chair Rory Christian said in a news release.
The PSC order and the news release announcing it do not summarize or draw highlights from the new Article VIII of state Public Service Law, which fills 483 pages.
Instead, the news release emphasizes the state’s continued commitment to environmental protection and stakeholder engagement. Discussion at the Feb. 12 PSC meeting followed the same theme before the PSC voted unanimously to approve the rules.
Over the past 22 months, Department of Public Service staff drafted the regulations, held 20 in-person and two virtual public comment sessions on them, twice extended the deadline for written comments until more than 2,000 had been submitted, revised the rules based on that input, took more than 400 comments on the revised version and further tweaked the language before presenting it for the Feb. 12 vote.
There is a hint of irony in naming something “rapid” and then putting it through such a lengthy process.
But things can move slowly as competing priorities are balanced, and “rapid” can be relative or subjective. ORES is an example: It legitimately can be called faster or more streamlined than what it replaced, but “fast” is in the eye of the beholder.
Before the vote, Christian fired off a series of questions at ORES Executive Director Zeryai Hagos intended to counter the many criticisms of ORES leveled by home rule proponents and renewable energy opponents.
Christian knew the answers, certainly, but wanted them stated for the record.
Does ORES take land by eminent domain? How does it use application fees? Does it allow development over landowners’ wishes? Is it a rubber stamp for renewable energy projects?
Hagos shot down each one.
“I would strongly disagree with the term ‘rubber stamp,’” Hagos said. “We frequently hear the exact opposite sentiment from applicants and investors who are engaging in this type of development from around the country. The truth is that ORES has developed an extremely comprehensive application review process that holds developers accountable, successfully limiting environmental and community impacts.”
ORES has rejected only one application, and that was because the project had lost property rights, not because the proposal was flawed or neighbors opposed it. Of the other 38 applications submitted, 29 have been approved, eight are under review and one has been withdrawn.
So on its surface, the record is skewed heavily in favor of renewables. But the record says nothing of the process behind the numbers.
Hagos said ORES has issued 51 notices of incomplete application so far: “We say ‘no’ and we say ‘redo this’ frequently to applicants. … To date, each application submitted to the office has been turned away at least once through a notice of incomplete application.”
Further, many plans never get past the pre-application stage and are not reflected in ORES’ 29-1-1 record.
“The clear publication of uniform standards and conditions in the regulations directly allows the developers to eliminate bad projects before they ever come in,” Hagos said. “Pre-application can take upwards of two years for a motivated applicant. We think it can get down to a year if they do everything in parallel, as quickly as possible.”
After questioning Hagos, Christian alluded to the difference between faster and fast: “One thing I want to make clear — ‘expedite’ doesn’t mean doing less. And you’ve made it very clear that the new regulations actually will require additional work in most instances.”
SAVANNAH, Ga. — As NERC’s Board of Trustees voted to accept the recommendations of the Modernization of Standards Processes and Procedures Task Force, Chair Suzanne Keenan said the ERO’s leadership is focused on delivering needed change while maintaining industry’s role in standards development.
“We’re moving at speed — executing, adapting and delivering while simultaneously redesigning the machine that carries us forward,” Keenan said at the board’s first meeting of 2026 in Savannah, Ga. “The friction we’re feeling and will feel is data. It tells us what needs reinforcement, refinement and modernization.”
“At the same time, speed without structure is risk,” she continued. “We do need guardrails, not to slow us down, but to keep us aligned and stable as we accelerate. Those guardrails give us confidence to move decisively without veering of course.”
The acceptance of the MSPPTF’s recommendations caps a yearlong process that began with the board’s February 2025 meeting in Miami. (See NERC Leaders Highlight Canada-US Collaboration.) NERC kicked off the initiative after the board twice had to step in to use its special authority under the ERO’s Rules of Procedure to accelerate the normal standards development process to meet deadlines set by FERC.
MSPPTF Chair Greg Ford, CEO of Georgia Systems Operations, emphasized that the task force “wanted to make sure that we were accessible to stakeholders” and over the past year gave more than 50 presentations, either standalone or as agenda items at meetings or conferences, that were heard by more than 5,800 participants. NERC also posted the recommendations for a final industry comment period at the end of January. (See NERC Modernization Task Force Leaders Present Final Recommendations.)
The recommendations involve significant changes to the initiation, drafting and balloting stages of standards development, including a new subcommittee of the Reliability Issues Steering Committee to create development plans and a pool of subject matter experts to help NERC staff develop initial standard drafts. Registered ballot body segments would be restructured, and the voting rules would be updated. Also, a “fast track” process would be available for urgent projects.
Howard Gugel, NERC’s senior vice president for regulatory oversight, told trustees the ERO plans to pilot the standards initiation workshop this year and will begin developing the SME pool called for in the MSPPTF recommendations as soon as possible. He said NERC staff is considering using artificial intelligence to help develop the new process “within the bounds of the existing standards process manual.” The MSPPTF will remain in place throughout the implementation as an advisory body.
The final proposal will need FERC’s approval, and revisions to the charters of the ERO’s standing committees, including the RSTC and RISC, also will be necessary, along with the disbanding of the Standards Committee. On page 80 of the meeting agenda, management estimated the final changes to the Rules of Procedure will be submitted to the board in the first quarter of 2027 and, if approved, filed with FERC and Canadian authorities the following quarter. Standing committee revisions should be complete by the end of 2027.
Leaders Tout Accomplishments in 2025
NERC COO Kelly Hanson, presenting the ERO’s 2025 performance assessment, cited the MSPPTF as one example of the organization’s expertise in stakeholder engagement, which she called its “secret sauce.”
That collaboration skill stood the ERO in good stead in 2025, as it accomplished all 10 of its work plan priorities for the year, including:
developing a framework to identify emerging reliability risks from the transforming grid;
identifying critical cyber and physical security risks to the electric industry;
meeting all FERC directives and mandates within the required time frames;
creating a road map for development of NERC’s Critical Infrastructure Protection standards to ensure baseline protection;
expanding stakeholder engagement to reach a more diverse audience;
enhancing the ERO’s online portals;
researching the potential reliability benefits of AI and other new technologies;
improving financial and human resources processes to improve employee experience and accelerate workflow; and
boosting operational efficiency by revising corporate frameworks and consolidating facilities.
NERC finished its priorities despite having several “unplanned activities” added to its plate, Hanson said, naming the launch of the MSPPTF, the turmoil of the second Trump administration, the departure of three FERC heads before the confirmation of current Chair Laura Swett and NERC offering to help investigate the mass outage on the Iberian Peninsula in June. (See NERC Offered to Help with Iberia Outage Investigation, Robb Says.)
“We all know what happens in an organization [when] you have unplanned activities,” Hanson said. “It kind of halts everything. It’s very disruptive. All of a sudden, you have to change all of your priorities around you … your people, your processes, your technology, your budgets. … It’s really impressive, because it starts to show how this industry is becoming more agile [and] more flexible.”
Changes at the Top
The board also welcomed new Trustee Ron Talbot after his approval by the organization’s Member Representatives Committee that day. Talbot will fill the vacancy left by the departure of former Trustee Bob Clarke in February 2025; the MRC elected not to replace Clarke at that time, so it could extend the search for a candidate to handle “the current speed of change” in the grid and the technology, security and policy landscape.
Talbot’s 40-year career in the electric industry has taken him across five utilities in all three U.S. interconnections. He has also served on the boards of directors at several companies and nonprofits. Along with Talbot, Keenan and existing Trustees Jim Piro and Kristine Schmidt were elected to serve another three-year term.
The board’s next meeting will take place in Washington, D.C. on June 18. The meeting will be held under a hybrid arrangement in which MRC and trustees will attend in person and all others will participate virtually.
EPA has rescinded its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that endanger public health and thus require regulation under the Clean Air Act, along with every vehicle emission standard that it had issued since 2012 as a result.
President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the move Feb. 12, with both calling it the “single largest deregulatory action in American history.” They claimed it would save the U.S. $1.3 trillion in regulatory costs and an average of $2,400 on a new car.
Trump called the endangerment finding “a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers.” He said it “had no basis in fact, had none whatsoever, and it had no basis in law.”
The agency’s rollbacks, while significant, are limited to regulations under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. The section pertains to emissions from new motor vehicles and engines that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” That phrase is found elsewhere in the law, including Section 111, which allowed for regulation of new stationary sources of emissions.
Zeldin said the Supreme Court had established a “clear precedent” with its decisions in West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that “if Congress didn’t authorize it, EPA shouldn’t be doing it. Congress never voted for these climate mandates. … If Congress wants EPA to regulate the heck out of greenhouse gases emitted out of motor vehicles, then Congress can clearly make that law, which they haven’t done, for good reason.”
Congress, however, did make that the law with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which amended the CAA to specifically classify six greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — as air pollutants to be regulated by EPA, mostly through incentives for zero-emission vehicles.
The agency issued the endangerment finding in 2009, nearly a year after President Barack Obama took office. It had been ordered by President George W. Bush in 2007 to begin regulating emissions of the six gases after the Supreme Court found it was required to in Massachusetts v. EPA.
“Today, the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding: the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules,” Obama posted on X. “Without it, we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.”
EPA’s recission, which is likely to face a legal challenge, may rely on the court overturning Massachusetts v. EPA, or ruling that the IRA’s amendments do not mean the agency is required to regulate greenhouse gases, though it has the authority to do so. In 2022’s West Virginia v. EPA, the court affirmed the agency’s ability to regulate power plant emissions through reduction technologies. All six of the same conservative justices in the majority on that decision are still serving.
“This decision will drive up costs for businesses and consumers and weaken our economy. It upends nearly two decades of commonsense policy,” Sandra Purohit, federal advocacy director for business group E2, said in a statement. “It discourages capital investment and innovation in the auto industry. And it ignores the economic costs of extreme weather that’s only made worse by rising GHG pollution — including disaster clean-up, higher insurance premiums, lost productivity and supply chain disruption.”
The agency did not respond to a request for comment on what, if any, changes to the proposal, as published in the Federal Register, had been made in the final rule, the text of which had not been released as of publication time.
NEW YORK — After a remarkably bad year for the U.S. offshore wind industry, the Oceantic Network’s annual conference was focused on engineering a rebound rather than licking the wounds.
The official theme of IPF 2026 was “Reimagine Renew Reignite,” and most speakers emphasized one or more of those.
But there was another recurring message: Renewal and re-ignition are on hold until Jan. 20, 2029, when a president more supportive of generating electricity with wind turbines at sea might be inaugurated.
The important thing, speakers said, is that the re-imagining not wait until then — U.S. offshore wind was struggling well before Donald Trump was elected president again, and if the second act is to be more successful than the first, changes need to be considered.
This year’s International Partnering Forum was much smaller than previous editions, for obvious reasons. The active components of the U.S. offshore wind portfolio are five facilities under construction totaling 5.8 GW and a completed 132-MW facility. Stalled, shelved and canceled plans are much greater in number and proposed capacity.
Fewer than 900 people attended IPF 2026, compared with more than 1,500 at the 2025 edition and more than 3,000 in 2024, when 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030 still was the official goal of the Biden administration.
But the midtown Manhattan ballroom that served as the main venue for IPF 2026 was packed. The few empty seats went unfilled only because the people standing in the rear of the room were too circumspect to wade in once the program started.
A metaphorical elephant also was in the room, and Oceantic President Liz Burdock pointed it out immediately in her opening address Feb. 10: “Since January 2025, offshore wind has faced a series of coordinated administrative actions, legal challenges and political attacks unlike anything we have ever seen. We wake up day after day to another headline that questions whether this industry has a future in the United States, and that’s exactly why being here together matters.”
With the elephant acknowledged, she and subsequent speakers reminded listeners what they have accomplished and exhorted them to keep alive the vision behind their earlier efforts: clean, fixed-price power from an abundant source.
What is left of the U.S. offshore wind sector has pushed back against the Trump administration’s attacks and continued to make progress in the 10 months since IPF 2025. It also has generated some operational data.
The Long Island Power Authority’s South Fork Wind, the first utility-scale facility in U.S. waters, began commercial operation nearly two years ago, and its performance counters the criticism of offshore wind as unreliable: It generated power in 90% of the hours and on 362 of the days in 2025, ending the year with a capacity factor of 46.3%.
“That is remarkable production from a wind turbine site,” said Mikkel Maehlisen, head of U.S. offshore generation at Ørsted, the developer and now operator of South Fork.
Vineyard Wind, which is nearing completion off the Massachusetts coast, showed its value by sending up to 600 MW to the strained New England grid during the winter storm of January 2026, Burdock noted: “When the storm hit, offshore wind showed up.”
New York was the host of IPF 2026 and by some measures is the center of the U.S. offshore wind sector. It has contracted for power from three separate wind facilities; no other state has more than one contract.
New York also has had more problems with its offshore wind program than any other state, including multiple contract cancellations and repeated cost escalations. However, New York continues to press forward — in 2026, its portfolio is smaller than in 2023 and will cost ratepayers more, but it has steel in the water, some of it operational and the rest making progress toward operation.
Keynote speaker Doreen Harris, president of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), said offshore wind remains an important part of the state’s future energy strategy, despite the setbacks and roadblocks in its path.
“It’s been a year that we couldn’t have anticipated, but that is why we plan for uncertainty, and collectively, we have demonstrated the durability of our commitment, not just today and not just tomorrow, but into the coming years, as we really see the benefits of these projects move forward.”
The Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind projects are contracted to deliver 810 and 924 MW to New York once operational. The Trump administration has halted work on Sunrise once and Empire twice; the developers won injunctions and resumed work, but the administration has said it will appeal. (See Trump Administration to Continue Effort to Halt OSW Work.)
If these two facilities can reach commercial operation, they and South Fork can be a model for the ecosystem once and still envisioned for the U.S. offshore wind sector, with overlapping benefits such as job creation, industrial development, infrastructure upgrades and new carbon-free electricity for a region of the NYISO grid that is sliding toward reliability violations.
“We will learn not only their operating characteristics, we will learn more about the impacts that they are or aren’t having,” Harris said. “Ultimately, we will be able to demonstrate … that offshore wind can and will be delivered in a durable, responsible and cost-effective manner for New Yorkers and frankly for the entire U.S.”
What Went Wrong?
Multiple challenges faced the offshore wind sector as it attempted to establish itself and develop momentum in the United States. Understanding what went wrong is key to moving forward. Burdock led a panel discussion on this theme.
“We can’t keep importing models that don’t quite fit,” she said, referring to the large and long-running European offshore wind sector, and panelists agreed.
Even so, there have been valuable takeaways from Europe. Many of the early U.S. offshore projects contracted their income long before they contracted their expenses and had to cancel the contracts when inflation set in.
The contract-for-difference model used in European offshore wind projects made an allowance for this, and New York successfully adapted it for its later contracts, said Georges Sassine, NYSERDA’s senior vice president of large-scale resources.
But he said a wholesale adaptation of European practices is unworkable in the U.S. — there are many more regulatory layers here.
“When things are going well, it’s easy to ignore risk, and offshore wind has a lot of risk,” said Will Hazelip, president of National Grid Ventures. “And unfortunately, over the course of the last three, four years, we’ve seen all those risks emerge, and it’s highlighted that some of the frameworks we had in place weren’t fit to manage all those risks.”
Billy Haugland, CEO of the Haugland Group, reminded listeners that the global pandemic with its resulting supply chain disruptions and price increases played a significant role in U.S. offshore wind’s problems. But a too-slow adaptation to those factors damaged the sector and left it less able to fight back when Trump set out to squash it.
Sassine pointed to offshore transmission development as a challenge, but he framed these things as growing pains, rather than failure and errors.
“When we were launching a new industry, it required a very different approach than where we are today, with a more mature industry,” he said. “Now that we have a few projects and more developing, we just have the natural evolution of this industry, where we need to adapt.”
Burdock wondered if the industry and policymakers had erred by framing offshore wind as generation rather than energy infrastructure. No one protested the idea.
Kent Herzog, senior managing director at Burns & McDonnell, later drilled down on this theme.
“We treated offshore wind like a transaction,” he said, “and I’m here to argue that it’s more about infrastructure, which I think you really heard several times this morning. When you try to build infrastructure using transactional tools, procurement models, risk allocation, timelines that assume certainty, you shouldn’t be surprised when those systems break.”
The California high-speed rail project, Boston’s Big Dig and the U.S. interstate highway system saw similar system-level problems in their execution, Herzog said.
“Politics, COVID, supply chains — all those things had impacts on this industry, no question, but they did not cause these problems, in my opinion, they exposed it. Because the systems we built were already fragile. It just hadn’t been stress-tested yet.”
He continued: “We wanted offshore wind, but we also wanted low prices, minimum risk exposure, rapid timelines and one-off procurements that didn’t require long-term coordination. Those demands are not irrational, they’re very understandable, but taken together, they weren’t achievable, not for a first-of-its-kind industrial system.”
Herzog concluded: “President Trump didn’t kill offshore wind. We did, by building a fragile system and hoping politics wouldn’t test it.”
Moving Forward
Most speakers Feb. 10 struck a more upbeat tone than Herzog, as might be expected when urging an audience to retain its professional, financial and personal commitments to a diminished enterprise that the president of the United States is trying to derail.
Burdock said new reality facing the industry in the past year “gives us a freedom and an obligation to design a new model for offshore wind in the United States — reimagine, renew and reignite, that is exactly what this moment demands of us.”
Harris said: “We know that the market has been tested in ways that we could not have anticipated in just one year. These challenges are real, and they are not unique to New York, but what does matter is how we respond to them.”
Sassine said New York is focusing on preservation and then adaptation: protecting the existing projects, getting them built and keeping the industry intact through its struggles. Looking forward, “this is an opportunity for us to pause and rethink and adapt and evolve our model going forward.”
New York State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation Amanda Lefton, a former director of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said recent experiences highlight the importance of meticulous permitting: All five projects under construction in U.S. waters had defensible permits and were able to secure injunctions against the Trump administration’s December stop-work orders.
Strong regulatory structures can be seen as anti-business, she conceded, but in this situation, they have helped the industry.
Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, reminded the audience who will foot the cost of offshore wind projects, which have grown sharply more expensive in the 2020s.
“Other types of resources are facing similar price pressures,” she said. “But that does not mean that our state, at least, is going to purchase offshore wind at any cost.”
Katharine Perry, deputy director of resource adequacy for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, said her state’s first swing at offshore wind cost it some credibility with a key constituency: “In New Jersey, we have lost some public confidence in the industry. We’ve talked a lot about investor confidence, but without public confidence, you don’t have the political support to continue solicitations and bring projects forward.”
“One of the things we need to work on as an industry in the state of New Jersey moving forward is rebuilding that public trust, rebuilding momentum for the industry,” she added. “It’s a little bit of a call to action here, we can’t do it alone as the state regulator, and we are going to need support.”
Burdock said circumstances present a window for improvement.
“It isn’t often that you get an opportunity to recreate something better, more durable than the first time around,” she said. “So I view this as a good time for the offshore wind industry, despite all the challenges that we’ve had during the last year.”
ISO-NE updated stakeholders on its methods for assessing the impacts of its proposed capacity market overhaul on Feb. 11 as it prepares to release the initial results of the long-awaited analysis in March.
The RTO’s Capacity Auction Reform (CAR) project includes significant changes to resource accreditation and the timing and format of capacity auctions. ISO-NE aims to implement the changes for the 2028/29 capacity commitment period.
Given the significant effects the changes could have on market outcomes, the impact analysis is eagerly awaited by a wide range of stakeholders. Resource owners and developers are particularly interested in the potential effects of the accreditation changes on how much capacity they can sell in the market.
Chris Geissler, director of economic analysis at the RTO, told the NEPOOL Markets Committee that the feedback showed “strong interest” in better understanding the drivers of changes to the net installed capacity requirement (ICR) and the impacts of a risk split that more heavily weights summer risks. There was less consensus around what future resource mixes ISO-NE should study, he said.
ISO-NE in January outlined plans for a “near-term base case,” relying on its most recent forecast for the 2028/29 CCP, and a future case relying on its most recent forecast for 2035 and assuming additional wind, solar and battery capacity.
Geissler said ISO-NE now plans to develop two more future cases that vary based on how much wind, solar and storage capacity are added and how much oil capacity is deactivated.
Key outputs for each case will include net ICR values; demand Marginal Reliability Impact (MRI) curves for each year and season; winter gas MRI curves for gas-fired resources without firm fuel commitments; and relative MRI values for resource types.
ISO-NE also plans to provide information on expected unserved energy, the value of different storage durations and “additional information on the breakdown of MRI hours.”
The impact analysis will also include model sensitivities building on the near-term base case and three future cases. Using the base case, ISO-NE plans to study a seasonal risk split shifted toward the summer; changes to the storage dispatch methodology; and changes to the total available gas supply. Using the future cases, the RTO plans to study higher annual and winter load levels.
It plans to present results from the near-term base case and the first future case to the Markets Committee in March, followed by results on the two additional future cases in April.
ISO-NE plans to run a separate analysis to estimate the effects of CAR on market clearing outcomes. This analysis is intended to “present ranges of clearing prices, capacity award amounts and revenues to approximate the impacts” of the market changes.
It requested feedback on the proposed modeling assumptions in advance of the March meeting, and it plans to present the initial results of this analysis in May.
Hybrid Resource Accreditation
Also at the Markets Committee, Ben Chenault of ISO-NE discussed the RTO’s proposed approach for accrediting co-located resources, which typically consist of solar and storage components.
Under the new framework, ISO-NE plans “to model each component of a hybrid resource separately, using a framework consistent with the component’s technology type.”
ISO-NE would model the resource facility limit “using the existing interface limit modeling capability” of its accreditation modeling software, Chenault said.
He noted that, if the facility limit reduces the amount of energy a hybrid resource can supply during MRI hours, the resource would see a reduction in its accreditation value.
