Carbon Pricing Update: ISO-NE and NYISO Look to Gain Ground in 2017

Feb 13, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Shawn Whites (Paralegal)

At NEPOOL’s January 25, 2017, IMAPP meeting, ISO-NE presented a memorandum on three conceptual IMAPP proposals—carbon pricing in the energy markets, forward clean energy markets and two-tiered pricing in the forward capacity market—but did not take a position supporting (or not supporting) any of the proposals. Rather, ISO-NE highlighted key aspects and concerns with each proposal to date. In comparison to a forward clean energy market and two-tiered pricing, ISO‐NE noted that carbon pricing “fares well on key market design criteria” (i.e., simplicity, transparency and cost-effectiveness) when evaluating the proposals that “aim to directly reduce carbon emissions.” However, ISO-NE noted that any carbon pricing proposal would pose three major challenges: (i) proper setting and adjustment of the initial carbon price, (ii) determination of how to allocate revenue generated from the carbon price and (iii) federal-state jurisdictional issues. 

Given ISO-NE’s short-term goal—to have any potential market reforms in place for the 13th Forward Capacity Auction, which would require a filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by the end of 2017—a carbon pricing proposal might be out of the equation as a near-term solution. As ISO-NE stresses several times throughout its memorandum and accompanying presentation, ISO-administered carbon pricing, though relatively straight forward, “may . . . not be implementable quickly inasmuch as the novelty of the jurisdictional issues it poses may create delays while legal issues are resolved.” The ISO’s point is especially relevant today, since federal-state jurisdictional battles have made it all the way to the Supreme Court in recent years. Further complicating any potential market reforms in ISO-NE—and other wholesale markets—is FERC’s potentially lengthy non quorum period, the implications of which we discussed here.

While ISO-NE seeks a near-term solution, NYISO is looking long-term. In its January 31, 2017, IPPP update, NYISO established a three-phase schedule to “investigate potential market designs that can fully incorporate the cost of carbon” into its wholesale markets. For the first phase, NYISO has hired the Brattle Group to produce a white paper considering “various approaches that would internalize the cost of carbon emissions,” including any effect on the efficiency of NYISO’s capacity markets, with a completion date expected in April or May. During phase two, NYISO will conduct its own assessment, which will study the market impact of adding renewable capacity sufficient to meet New York’s 50 percent Clean Energy Standard by its 2030 goal. The results of the first two phases will inform NYISO’s third phase, in which it will assess whether or not market rule changes are necessary to meet the region’s reliability needs. NYISO anticipates that any such changes will be identified in Q2-Q3 of 2017. 


1 NEPOOL is the participant voting organization on all wholesale electricity market matters across the New England states.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.