ER26-3650-000 · 2026-10-02 · Coalition of MISO Transmission CustomersIllinois Industrial Energy ConsumersAssociation of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity ,NIPSCO Large Customer Group ,Louisiana Energy Users Group ,Texas Industrial Energy Consumers ,

Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers et al. to the Joint Protest of the Sierra Club et al

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 
 
)  
Docket No. ER26-3650-000
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER PROTESTS AND ANSWER  
OF THE LARGE ENERGY USERS 
Pursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” 
or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 the Coalition of MISO Transmission 
Customers (“CMTC), the Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers (“IIEC”), the Association of 
Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (“ABATE”), the NIPSCO Large Customer Group 
(“NLCG”), the Louisiana Energy Users Group (“LEUG”), and the Texas Industrial Energy 
Consumers (“TIEC”) (collectively, “the Large Energy Users”) hereby request leave to submit this 
Motion for Leave to Answer Protests and Answer (“Answer”) to the Joint Protest of the Sierra 
Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Clean 
Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sustainable FERC Project, and Fresh Energy 
(collectively “Public Interest Organizations”, or “PIOs”), and the Joint Protest of the Iowa Office 
of Consumer Advocate (“Iowa OCA”), Office of the Illinois Attorney General (“IL OAG”), 
Illinois Citizens Utility Board (“IL CUB”), Michigan Attorney General, Michigan Citizens Utility 
Board (“MI CUB”), Minnesota Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), Citizens Utility Board 
of Minnesota (“MN CUB”), Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board (“WI CUB”), Citizens Action 
Coalition of Indiana, Inc., and Alliance for Affordable Energy (collectively the “Consumer Interest 
Advocates”) (collectively both protesting parties shall be referred to as the “Protesting Public 
Interest Parties”).
1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.213.

2
I.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER 
The Large Energy Users respectfully request leave to file this Answer.  Rule 213(a)(2) 
generally prohibits answers to protests unless such answers have been authorized by the decisional 
authority.2  However, the Commission exercises its discretion to grant motions for leave to submit 
answers when doing so will clarify the issues, assist in the Commission’s decision-making 
processes, or otherwise ensure an accurate and complete record.3
The Large Energy Users are a collection of ad hoc associations of large end-users of 
electricity, including manufacturers and educational institutions operating on thin margins, that 
consume substantial amounts of electricity at various facilities throughout the Midcontinent 
Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) footprint.  The Large Energy Users are also some of 
the largest employers in the MISO footprint that continue to face increased operational costs as a 
result of longstanding increases in the cost of electric service.  The Large Energy Users will be 
most directly affected by the FERC’s determinations in this proceeding regarding MISO’s 
Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads Proposal (“IRR Proposal”).  The Large 
Energy Users support reforms that ensure just and reasonable practices that avoid adverse negative 
economic consequences and unnecessary regulatory burdens to existing large loads, especially 
existing manufacturing and educational institutional loads that have not triggered the regulatory and 
legislative efforts responding to concerns associated with high-impact, large computational loads 
whose electrical characteristics present system risks.  The Large Energy Users worked diligently 
with other stakeholders to achieve a compromise solution that MISO filed with FERC.  The 
2 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2). 
3 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 145 FERC ¶ 61,035, at P 32 (2013); Wisconsin Pub. Serv. Corp., 144 FERC 
¶ 61,093, at P 27 (2013); Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 137 FERC ¶ 61,185, at P 17 (2011); Virginia Elec. and Power 
Co., 125 FERC ¶ 61,391, at P 26 (2008).

3
grandfathering provisions currently presented in the IRR Proposal strike a balance between 
managing reliability issues caused by new Large Loads, while protecting commercial certainty for 
existing manufacturers and industrial customers.  Because the Protesting Public Interest Parties 
broadly challenge the grandfathering provisions, the Large Energy Users provide their perspective 
on the importance of those grandfathering provisions to the economic well-being of employers 
throughout the MISO footprint and, therefore, ask the Commission to consider these comments in 
issuing an order in this proceeding.    
II.
ANSWER 
A.
MISO’s Grandfathering/Transition Proposal is Just and Reasonable and 
Consistent with the June 18, 2026 Show Cause Order’s Objective to Protect 
Existing Commercial Arrangements. 
The Commission explicitly stated that the Show Cause Order4 was issued to determine 
prospective reforms related to Large Load interconnections and was not intended to disrupt 
existing commercial arrangements.  Further, the Commission instructed MISO to ensure that any 
Tariff revisions accommodate existing commercial arrangements through a reasonable 
implementation timeline.  The relevant part of the Show Cause Order states the following: 
We recognize that large loads, including data centers, are actively 
working with transmission owners and other relevant entities to 
interconnect to, and to take service from, the transmission system.  
We appreciate that different large loads are currently at different 
stages of that process.  We also understand that large loads and 
Eligible Customers taking transmission service on behalf of large 
loads are negotiating, entering into, and/or have executed various 
agreements related to interconnecting to the transmission system 
and/or the provision of transmission service.  This proceeding is not 
intended to disrupt existing commercial arrangements, but rather to 
establish prospective reforms.  Accordingly, any Tariff revisions 
offered by MISO and/or the Transmission Owners in response to 
this proceeding should (a) propose a reasonable implementation 
period to ensure minimal disruption to such existing commercial 
4 “Order Instituting Proceeding Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act,” Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Op. Inc. et al, 
195 FERC ¶ 61,212, at P 5, Docket No. EL26-70-000 (June 18, 2026) (“Show Cause Order”).

4
arrangements, and (b) allow a reasonable amount of time to 
finalize ongoing agreements that are nearing completion as of the 
date such Tariff provisions are filed with the Commission.  Such 
proposed Tariff revisions should include a reasonable effective 
date that accommodates such considerations regarding these 
existing commercial arrangements.5
In alignment with FERC’s directive, MISO’s IRR Proposal includes a grandfathering 
provision which exempts two categories of Large Loads: 1) Large Loads with a Service 
Commencement Date on or prior to December 4, 2026; and 2) Large Loads associated with 
transmission projects either approved for MISO’s Transmission Expansion Plan (“MTEP”) 2026 
or submitted for Expedited Project Review (“EPR”) prior to June 18, 2026.6  The former category 
will be entirely exempt from reliability requirements, and the latter category will be exempt from 
any applicable ride-through and ramp requirements.7  This grandfathering provision respects 
existing customers and existing contracts and presents a reasonable timeline for agreements that 
are in process to conclude before the implementation of new reliability requirements.  
As emphasized by Google LLC: MISO’s “pragmatic approach” includes a “reasonable 
grandfathering of existing customers in a manner that respects reliance interests and investments 
made under the rules in effect at the time.”8  Further, the proposed grandfathering provisions 
prevent adverse economic consequences and unnecessary regulatory burdens to Large Loads, 
especially existing manufacturing and institutional loads that have not triggered the regulatory and 
legislative efforts responding to concerns associated with high-impact, large computational loads.  
For manufacturers that have been contemplating modest expansions, MISO’s proposal and FERC’s 
5 Show Cause Order at P 5 (emphasis added). 
6 MISO’s Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads, Docket No. ER26-3650, Accession No. 
20260828-5278 (Aug. 28, 2026) (“IRR Filing”) at Tab A Tariff Redline at 37A(II). 
7 Id.
8 Comments of Google LLC at 1, Docket No. EL26-3650-000, Accession No. 20260918-5386 at 1 (Sep. 18, 2026).

5
Show Cause Order sends a critical signal of price and regulatory certainty for any investors 
interested in trying to help onshoring and industrial revitalization in the United States.  As such, the 
currently proposed grandfathering provisions are consistent with the FERC’s unambiguous 
directive in the Show Cause Order to protect existing load and existing arrangements.   
B.
The Public Interest Organizations and Consumer Interest Advocates Have 
Not Demonstrated that Existing Large Loads are Causing the Reliability 
Concerns Targeted by the Show Cause Order. 
Large manufacturers and industrial customers have existed within MISO’s footprint for 
years, operating safely and reliably, and therefore those longstanding existing loads do not present 
the same reliability concerns associated with the electrical characteristics and high-impact, speed-
to-power demands of certain large, emerging computational loads.  The North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) has highlighted numerous reliability challenges presented by 
emerging Large Loads, and electrical characteristics of computational loads specifically.9
The PIOs accurately discuss the Commission’s cost-causation principle10 and assert that 
Large Loads must pay for reliability costs they impose on the transmission system.11  However, 
the PIOs do not provide evidence that the existing Large Loads comprised of long-standing 
industrial customers and manufacturers are causing the reliability issues facing the electric grid 
today.  The Show Cause Order is aimed at recent and exponential growth of Large Loads, not at 
large customers who have been reliably participating in MISO for decades.  Further, the Consumer 
Interest Advocates generically assert a reliability threat caused by existing customers but fail to 
9 NERC, Characteristics and Risks of Emerging Large Loads: Large Loads Task Force White Paper (July 2025), 
available at: https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/who-we-are/standing-committees/rstc/whitepaper-characteristics-
and-risks-of-emerging-large-loads.pdf (last visited on Sept. 28, 2026). 
10 Protest of Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law And Policy Center, Clean 
Wisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sustainable FERC Project, and Fresh Energy at 6-7, Docket No. ER26-
3650, Accession No. 20260918-5397 (Sept. 18, 2026). 
11 Id. at 7.

6
substantiate it.12  Accordingly, the Protesting Public Interest Parties have not shown that the IRR 
Proposal’s grandfathering provision should be rejected on reliability grounds.   
To the extent that any new and additional reliability requirements are necessary, such 
requirements can be further explored at the upcoming FERC Technical Conference in Docket No. 
AD26-8-000 on October 21, 2026 and through NERC’s ongoing risk assessment of emerging Large 
Loads.    
C.
Concerns about Cost Shifting Risk among Transmission Customers are More 
Appropriately Addressed in the Future Filing Directed by FERC and Planned 
by MISO. 
The Large Energy Users appreciate the cost shifting and transparency concerns raised by 
the PIOs and Consumer Interest Advocates; however, these concerns are more appropriately 
addressed in a future filing specifically focused on cost shifting risk among transmission 
customers. MISO has proposed a cost shifting framework in its Large Load Working Group13
(“LLWG”) and plans to formally address cost shifting in a future FERC filing.  Therefore, the 
PIOs’ stated concern that the grandfathering provisions presented in the IRR Proposal may 
“deprive electric consumers of the cost shifting and other consumer protections that MISO has 
been directed to address in the Show Cause Order”14 is appropriately raised in MISO’s 
forthcoming filing on that topic.  The instant proceeding is about new interconnection reliability 
12 See Joint Protest Of The Iowa Office Of The Consumer Advocate, Office Of The Illinois Attorney General, Illinois 
Citizens Utility Board, Michigan Attorney General, Michigan Citizens Utility Board, Minnesota Department Of 
Commerce, Minnesota Citizens Utility Board, Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board, Citizens Action Coalition Of Indiana, 
Inc., And Alliance For Affordable Energy at 3-4, Docket No. ER26-3650, Accession No. 20260918-5323 (Sept. 18, 
2026).("Consumer Interest Advocates Protest"). 
13 Cost Shifting Risk Among Transmission Customers was adopted as a new issue at the August 27, 2026, Large Load 
Working Group.  Next steps include gathering feedback, coordinating with Transmission Owners and OMS, and 
presenting a proposal to the LLWG, with a filing deadline of November 16, 2026.  See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. 
Operator, Large Load Working Group, Large Load Working Group Minutes at 4-5 (Aug. 27, 2026),  
https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20260923 LLWG Item 01c Minutes 20260827782601.pdf (last visited on Sept. 28, 2026). 
14 Consumer Interest Advocates Protest at 3.

7
requirements, not about cost shifting.  Moreover, as emphasized earlier, there has been no 
demonstration that existing customers (especially those that are not adding any material load 
additions) are causing undue cost shifts, regardless of the scope of any new interconnection 
reliability requirements imposed on those existing customers.   
Accordingly, the Protesting Public Interest Parties have not shown that the IRR Proposal’s 
grandfathering provision should be rejected on cost shifting grounds. 
D.
MISO’s Proposal Reflects Feedback Provided During the Stakeholder 
Process. 
The Protesting Public Interest Parties overlook the extensive stakeholder feedback process 
and feedback requests presided over by MISO and the Large Load Working Group.15  The 
Commission affords an appropriate amount of deference to consensus-based proposals developed 
during the stakeholder process.16  Concerns regarding grandfathering and avoiding retroactive 
application of new rules were addressed early and throughout the stakeholder process, as 
evidenced by the following responses from MISO: 

May 26, 2026 MISO Response from 4/20/26 LLWG Feedback Request 
(https://cdn.misoenergy.org/MISO Feedback Response Interconnection Reliability 
Requirements (LLWG-2026-3) (20260420)760061.pdf)  
o
On Slide 3, MISO highlights the general stakeholder feedback reflecting the 
need for “clear screening mechanisms, transition rules, and avoidance of 
retroactivity.” (emphasis added)  

June 16, 2026 MISO Response from the May 14, 2026 LLWG Feedback Request 
(https://cdn.misoenergy.org/MISO Feedback Response to LLWG Large Load 
15 See MISO Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER26-3650-000, at 2-4, 8-9, 22; see also Prepared Direct Testimony of 
Beibei Li at 22:18-23:5, 34:12-39:22 (detailing the various stakeholder meetings, workshops, and feedback requests 
since 2024).   
16 See, e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,283, at P 33 (2009) (noting that the Commission “accord[s] an 
appropriate degree of deference to RTO stakeholder processes”); see also Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Wis. v. FERC, 545 
F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (noting the Commission often gives weight to RTO proposals that reflect the 
position of the majority of the RTO’s stakeholders) (quoting Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp. v. Midwest Indep. 
Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,083, at P 172 (2008)); see also Policy Statement Regarding Regional 
Transmission Groups, 1991-1996 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 30,976, at 30,872 (1993) (the Commission 
will afford an appropriate degree of deference to the stakeholder approval process).

8
Interconnection 
Reliability 
Requirements 
Tariff 
Draft 
(LLWG-2026-3) 
(20260514)764417.pdf) 
o
On Slide 4, MISO in the first item denotes proposed growth bandwidth for 
existing loads before new rule applicability. 

August 6, 2026 MISO Response from the June 29, 2026 LLWG Feedback Request 
(https://cdn.misoenergy.org/LLWG Large Load Interconnection Reliability 
Requirements Tariff Draft Response (LLWG-2026-3) (20260629)774218.pdf) 
o
On Slide 5, MISO emphasizes the feedback theme on protecting existing 
arrangements, including the development of specific grandfathering and 
transitional measures for existing loads.   
The Protesting Public Interest Parties do not explain or point to any feedback or rationale 
in the MISO stakeholder process indicating, showing, or demonstrating any compelling reliability 
or cost shift reasons that overcome the general theme flowing out of the stakeholder process 
regarding the importance of grandfathering, a reasonable transition mechanism, and protecting 
existing loads and commercial arrangements.

9
III.
CONCLUSION & REQUEST FOR RELIEF 
WHEREFORE, the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, the Illinois Industrial 
Energy Consumers, Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, the NIPSCO Large 
Customer Group, the Louisiana Energy Users Group, and the Texas Industrial Energy Consumers 
respectfully request that the Commission grant this Motion for Leave to Answer and consider this 
Answer and our underlying Joint Comments, Requests for Clarification, and Limited Protest when 
issuing and order in this proceeding.  
Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Kenneth R. Stark
Kenneth R. Stark  
Victoria A. Geddis 
Rebecca Kimmel 
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC  
100 Pine Street  
Harrisburg, PA 17101  
Telephone: (717) 237-8000  
kstark@mcneeslaw.com
vgeddis@mcneeslaw.com
rkimmel@mcneeslaw.com
Counsel 
to 
the 
Coalition 
of 
MISO 
Transmission Customers and on behalf of the 
Large Energy Users 
/s/ Katherine L. Coleman 
Katherine L. Coleman 
John Russ Hubbard 
O’Melveny & Meyers LLP  
303 Colorado St., Suite 2750 
Austin, TX 78701 
Telephone: (737) 261-8600  
kcoleman@omm.com
jhubbard@omm.com
Attorneys 
for 
Texas 
Industrial 
Energy 
Consumers
/s/ Edward Fitzhenry 
Edward Fitzhenry 
Attorney at Law 
Telephone: (314) 707-1212 
edfitzhenrylaw@gmail.com
Counsel to the Illinois Industrial Energy 
Consumers
/s/ Randy Young
Randy Young (#21958) 
Carrie R. Tournillon (#30093) 
Gordon D. Polozola (#23900) 
KEAN MILLER LLP 
Post Office Box 3513 
Baton Rouge, LA 70821 
Telephone: (225) 387-0999 
randy.young@keanmiller.com  
carrie.tournillon@keanmiller.com 
gordon.polozola@keanmiller.com 
Attorneys for Louisiana Energy Users Group

10
/s/ Benjamin J. Holwerda 
Benjamin J. Holwerda (P82110) 
Clark Hill PLC 
215 South Washington Square, Suite 200 
Lansing, MI 48933 
Telephone: (517) 318-3012 
bholwerda@clarkhill.com
Counsel to the Association of Businesses 
Advocating for Tariff Equity 
/s/ Joseph P. Rompala  
Joseph P. Rompala, Ind. Atty. No. 25078-49 
LEWIS & KAPPES, P.C. 
One American Square, Suite 2500 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46282-0003 
Telephone: (317) 639-1210 
JRompala@Lewis-Kappes.com
Counsel to NIPSCO Large Customer Group 
Date: October 2, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person 
designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. Dated this 2nd 
day of October 2026. 
/s/ Victoria A. Geddis  
Counsel to the Coalition of MISO 
Transmission Customers