New York Public Service Commission Issues Order Modifying the Coordinated Grid Planning Process

On November 13, 2025, the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order modifying the coordinated grid planning process (CGPP), which was previously established under the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (AREGCBA). 

Barclay Damon previously reported on the CGPP when it was first launched on August 17, 2023. The CGPP provides for multiple cycles of a three-year, six-stage planning process to identify long-term distribution, local transmission, and bulk system upgrades necessary to accommodate new renewable energy generation development and interconnection to meet the climate goals set forth in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The first cycle is anticipated to conclude in early 2026 (CGPP Cycle 1).

As part of CGPP Cycle 1, New York’s regulated utilities, together with the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) (collectively known as the Joint Utilities), and Department of Public Service Staff (DPS Staff) each filed recommendations in June and July 2024 to improve and shorten future CGPP cycles. Other stakeholders also filed comments, including members of the Energy Policy Planning Advisory Council (EPPAC). The PSC incorporated several of the recommendations made but refrained from reducing future CGPP cycles from the current three-year timeframe to a two-year timeframe. The PSC agreed with the Joint Utilities that while efficiency gains are possible, compressing the CGPP process to two years could compromise its credibility, with sensitivity to ratepayer impacts and the fact the CGPP would “potentially anchor billions in ratepayer investment over the next decades.” 

Ultimately, the modifications adopted by the order include:

1. Enhancing stakeholder engagement – The order requires the Joint Utilities, in consultation with LIPA and DPS Staff, to assume responsibility for managing the EPPAC process and communications among EPPAC members, including developing, publishing, and presenting a CGPP work schedule and cycle map prior to each new cycle; providing advance notice of upcoming EPPAC meetings and material filing deadlines; and establishing an EPPAC web portal.
2. Authorization for third-party consulting on modeling efforts – While the PSC wants DPS Staff and the Joint Utilities to “pursue a continued partnership with the [New York Independent System Operator (NYISO)]” for modeling efforts, in response to multiple comments, the order directs that they take necessary steps to pursue alternate arrangements in the event the NYISO is unable to fully perform its role within the CGPP timeframe, potentially including the retention of third-party consulting services.
3. Sub-zonal costs of headroom – The CGPP Cycle 1 modeling assumptions have used averaged costs for headroom (defined as the ability for the electric system to accommodate new generation resources) not specific to any given utility and not aligned with generation representation within the model. The assumptions also do not limit the amount of headroom available in any zone or year. As a lesson learned from CGPP Cycle 1, the PSC acknowledged that such assumptions either assigned excessive headroom to certain areas within the electric grid or identified headroom where it does not presently exist. Accordingly, the PSC directed the Joint Utilities to develop a new, granular representation of headroom based on one or more tranches of conceptual local upgrades for each utility district. The order also requires DPS Staff to work with the New York State Energy Research and Development (NYSERDA) to provide generation supply curve information matching utility district mapping to better determine how resource development impacts local headroom. The PSC stated that this action “is expected to be one of the key innovations of future CGPP cycles, allowing the process to develop the most realistic resource and infrastructure buildout to date, and accelerating future stages of the process.”
4. Incorporation of additional dispatchable emission-free resources (DFERs) – In the order, the PSC has directed the utilities, in consultation with LIPA and DPS Staff, to work with the NYISO to incorporate additional DEFR options, such as long-term storage and advanced nuclear generation, into the CGPP modeling framework, with appropriate constraints on cost, availability, and siting. The PSC has also required that future CGPP cycles consider other opportunities to examine resource adequacy within the CGPP that includes performing extreme weather sensitivities. The order further directs the utilities, in consultation with LIPA, to leverage the results of an assessment completed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in October 2025, the “Zero by 40 Technoeconomic Assessment,” in developing future capacity expansion modeling inputs for DEFR options and directs DPS Staff to work with the NYISO to improve the model.
5. Creation of conceptual bulk transmission costs – While the PSC stated that how the CCGP’s current modeling addresses the bulk transmission system’s limits is “technically workable,” it acknowledged that the process has “proven difficult without additional guidance from the model on the potential timing and magnitude of bulk needs.” The order therefore directs DPS Staff, in consultation with the NYISO and NYSERDA, to prepare conceptual bulk transmission costs for use in the capacity expansion model to optimize increases to interzonal transfer limits.
6. Addition of production cost modeling – The PSC agreed with the majority of stakeholders that adding production cost modeling to the CGPP will assist with optimizing scenario development and improving accuracy and realism of capacity expansion model outputs as well as with identifying specific power system challenges. The order thus directs the utilities, in consultation with LIPA, to incorporate this production cost modeling into Stage 1 of the next CGPP cycle, following capacity expansion modeling.
7. Coordination with federal rulemaking – The PSC acknowledged that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently issued Order 1920, which explicitly directs long-term transmission planning. Finding that Order 1920, as applied to the NYISO, will “complement and enhance” the CGPP process, the PSC directed DPS Staff and the utilities, in consultation LIPA, to work with the NYISO to harmonize the two processes. The PSC recognized that the timeframe for the NYISO’s implementation of its Order 1920 tariff may not align with the CGPP schedule and thus directed DPS Staff to consider whether CGPP Cycle 2 activities can be reconciled with the NYISO processes without jeopardizing efficiency and function and adjust CGPP deadlines for Cycle 2 as necessary. The PSC also recommended that the NYISO seek similar authorization from FERC to schedule the start of its Order 1920 process to align with the ongoing CGPP.
8. Transparency with respect to siting methodology – In response to stakeholder comments requesting increased transparency in the utilities’ siting methodology, the order directs the utilities, after consultation with LIPA and DPS Staff, to present their selected methodology at DPS Staff–convened technical conferences prior to the commencement of each CGPP cycle. 
9. Timing for development of project proposals – The PSC also directed the utilities, in consultation with LIPA, to follow a two-step process for developing project proposals: 1) the PSC directs, upon completion of the Stage 1 modeling, the development of high-level cost estimates, project sizes, and development timelines for upgrades associated with local headroom increases and then utilize any additional data gleaned from production cost modeling to complete additional local modeling and synergy analyses as necessary in Stages 2–4; and 2) the PSC directs the utilities to work with DPS Staff and the NYISO to prioritize those identified upgrades that “are likely to provide the most value to ratepayers,” with rate case quality cost estimates for those to be prioritized.

Lastly, the PSC also directed changes for the final stages of the current CGPP Cycle 1, authorizing the utilities to develop cost estimates in a phased approach. The PSC also indicated that “rate case quality designs” will only be required for those projects that are selected as part of the final optimized portfolio in Stage 5 and deemed, after consultation with DPS Staff, to qualify for inclusion in the final report.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Brenda Colella, Regulatory Practice Group leader and Regulatory Practice Area co-chair, at bcolella@barclaydamon.com; Ekin Senlet, Regulatory Practice Area co-chair, at esenlet@barclaydamon.com; David Solimeno, associate, at dsolimeno@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Regulatory or Energy Practice Areas.