February 10, 2026
On January 27, 2026, ISO-NE issued a request for feedback on the 2024 Economic Study to support a lessons learned discussion.[1] NESCOE submitted the following response via ISO-NE’s online feedback form on February 10, 2026.
***
ISO-NE Feedback Form
* 1. Please provide your name and organization.
* 2. How satisfied were you with the 2024 Economic Study report?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
* 3. How satisfied were you with stakeholder engagement during the 2024 Economic Study process?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
- What do you see as strengths of the 2024 Economic Study?
We support ISO-NE’s transition to a more integrated modeling approach that will allow for the comparison of results across economic studies, although we have yet to have the opportunity for such comparison. The changes to make the market efficiency analysis more consistent and methodical are also helpful.
- How could the 2024 Economic Study have been improved?
No specific recommendation.
* 6. Have you used any of our public PLEXOS model?
Yes
No
* 7. Would it be helpful if we made key model input data available in a model‑agnostic format (e.g., a cleaned‑up CSV export) to improve accessibility for those without PLEXOS?
Yes
No
- What technologies should be considered as candidate resources for the reference Policy Scenario?
Note: For the 2024 Economic Study, candidate resources included offshore wind (fixed & floating), land-based wind, photovoltaic, small-modular nuclear, and batteries (4-hr, 8-hr, and 100-hr duration).
This list seems reasonable. Within these categories, there is some interest in considering certain subcategories, such as, for example, vertical solar and AP1000 reactors.
- Are there any studies that you’d like to share with the Economic Studies team?
Note: Shared materials may be reviewed for general awareness and context, but we do not commit to any specific follow‑up actions.
None.
- What questions would you like to see addressed in a future study?
In general, we support continued efforts to align various modeling activities – the economic study, long-term (5-10 year) REST analysis, and longer-term transmission analysis. This is increasingly critical to informing state decisions around resource and transmission investments. We also suggest considering whether and how capacity expansion modeling can incorporate interconnection costs for different resource classes by location that ISO may have visibility into through interconnection studies.
- Are there additional thoughts that you would like to share?
Not at this time.