- Docket
- EL26-70-000
- Item
- E-8
- Reporter cite
- 195 FERC ¶ 61,212
- Region
- 15 states, Midwest + South
- Respondents
- MISO + 30 named transmission owners
- Length
- 115 pages
Read the order PDF (committed copy) Official source on ferc.gov ↗
What is unique to MISO
MISO is the cost-allocation stress test. Its tariff still studies new load at its maximum demand ‘regardless of the load’s operational capabilities or willingness to be curtailed,’ and the resulting network upgrades are ‘rolled into the relevant transmission owner’s base zonal rates,’ spread across that utility’s wholesale customers. MISO itself told its Large Load Working Group the tariff does ‘not provide a consistent or transparent framework’ for large loads. E-8 presses whether flexible service and a pro forma cost-recovery agreement can keep those upgrade costs on the load that caused them.
What FERC presses MISO on
- Whether and how Eligible Customers taking the new services would be charged for regulation and black-start service (P 99).
- An appropriate minimum level of cost recovery and financial security under any cost-recovery agreement (P 119).
Quoted directives, with page cites
Each quotation below is verbatim from the committed order text and links to the page it appears on. A test asserts every one of them against the extracted source.
-
Alternative transmission technologies P 119
“require the evaluation of alternative transmission technologies in transmission service request studies, using models that are capable of evaluating the transmission system”
-
Cost-recovery agreement P 6(b)
“a pro forma cost recovery agreement between MISO, the relevant transmission owner, and Eligible Customer taking transmission service on behalf of the large load to mitigate the risk of cost shifting”
-
Minimum cost recovery / security P 119
“what an appropriate minimum level of cost recovery and financial security from an Eligible Customer would be under any such agreements”
-
Co-location ancillary charges P 99
“whether and how Eligible Customers taking one of the new transmission services on behalf of Eligible Loads will be charged for their use of regulation and black start services”
-
Services for flexible / co-located loads P 6(d)
“transmission services that reflect Eligible Customers taking transmission service on behalf of co-located loads, load with behind the meter generation, and flexible large loads”
Region-specific findings
MISO is developing a zero-injection generator-interconnection-agreement process for co-located generation, but its Tariff has no standard procedures for it and doesn’t specify how MISO studies the reliability impacts. PP 32, 57
“zero-injection”
Existing services are limited to NITS and firm/non-firm Point-To-Point; the Tariff lacks the Interim NITS and Contract Demand services developed in the PJM co-location proceeding. P 104
“firm and non-firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service”
MISO leans on its Expedited Project Review (Attachment FF) for out-of-cycle approval of local projects, with applications rising on data-center growth. PP 21-22
“Expedited Project Review”
MISO itself told its Large Load Working Group the Tariff does ‘not provide a consistent or transparent framework to evaluate’ large loads. PP 29-32
“consistent or transparent framework”
MISO’s Tariff doesn’t distinguish by load size and studies new load (Module B) separately from generator interconnection — and service is requested at the load’s maximum demand, regardless of any willingness to be curtailed. pp. 19-20
“regardless of the load's operational capabilities or willingness to be curtailed”
Network Upgrades for new load enter the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP) and roll into the transmission owner’s base zonal rates (Attachments N and O), shared among that TO’s wholesale customers by usage. pp. 20-21
“rolled into the relevant transmission owner's base zonal rates”
What the public comment record says about MISO
27 of the RM26-4 record's public comments name-check MISO specifically (11 support · 4 oppose · 1 mixed · 11 neutral). That's a floor, not a full count: only about 40% of the corpus carries a region tag at all, so a comment that discusses MISO without the audit pass catching a region-specific mention won't appear here.
-
American Electric Power Service Corporation support
“The Commission's reforms should avoid introducing additional delays to large load interconnection by disrupting state and regional-level efforts.” p. 21
-
Arkansas Public Service Commission oppose
“the proposed rule is unnecessarily harmful for Arkansas and risks disrupting well‑functioning regional and state processes.” p. 1
-
MISO Transmission Owners mixed
“To insert a parallel federal process now risks duplicating these efforts, at best, and injecting delay and triggering litigation, at worst.”
-
American Transmission Company LLC neutral
“in ATC's experience, these large load customers require 24/7, uninterrupted, guaranteed, reliable service. From ATC's perspective, these customers will have network service, and pursuant to MISO's Tariff, all network load is generally treated as firm service. Introducing curtailment of network load complicates system management and could create scenarios where other customers' firm load is shed before the 'curtailable' large load.” p. 15
See all 27 comments about MISO →
Section IV briefing questions
This order poses its briefing questions at page 73 of the committed PDF: open at § IV. The questions are templated across the six show cause orders; the full set, and what the public record says on each, is in the comment record.
Respondents named in the order
AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc. · ALLETE, Inc. · Ameren Illinois Company · Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois · American Transmission Company, LLC · Cleco Power LLC · Duke Energy Indiana, LLC · Entergy Arkansas, LLC · Entergy Louisiana, LLC · Entergy Mississippi, LLC · Entergy New Orleans, LLC · Entergy Texas, Inc. · GridLiance Heartland LLC · Indianapolis Power & Light Company · International Transmission Company · ITC Midwest LLC · Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC · MidAmerican Energy Company · Montana-Dakota Utilities Company · Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC · Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation · Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin Corporation · Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company · Otter Tail Power Company · Pioneer Transmission, LLC · Republic Transmission, LLC · Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company · Union Electric Company · Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. · Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
The other dockets
E-7 PJM · E-9 SPP · E-10 CAISO · E-11 ISO-NE · E-12 NYISO · E-2 PJM
Return to the full briefing: the timeline, the five reform categories, the procedural clock, and the 273-comment RM26-4 record.