{"document":{"slug":"filing-20261028-5128","title":"Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of Central Municipal Power Agency Services, et al. to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s 10/13/2026 Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer","issued":"2026-10-28","accession":"20261028-5128","docket":"ER26-3650-000","group":"MISO filings","filer":"Central Municipal Power Agency/ServicesMissouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility CommissionWPPI Energy ,Indiana Municipal Power Agency ,","kind":"answer","file":"sources/originals/20261028-5128_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20261028-5128","sha256":"179870ac37409ecfeb6e2d73dde290c76921cab31362eaa10a6f34e1a93184ec","pages":9,"tokens":2062,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":248,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMidcontinent Independent System \nOperator, Inc. \nDocket No.  ER26-3650-000 \n \nMOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER \nOF MIDWEST TDUS  \nPursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s \n(“FERC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 Midwest TDUs2 \nrespectfully move for leave to answer and answer the October 13, 2026, Motion for \nLeave to Answer and Answer filed by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, \nInc. (“MISO”).3 MISO’s Answer responds to Midwest TDUs’ Comments,4 and protests \nby numerous other intervenors, of MISO’s original filing5 to revise its Open Access \nTransmission, Energy, and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (“Tariff”) to implement \nInterconnection Reliability Requirements for certain large loads. \nMidwest TDUs’ Answer below explains that MISO’s Answer does not resolve the \nconcerns identified in our original Comments. Specifically:  \n \n1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.213. \n2 Midwest TDUs consist of Central Municipal Power Agency/Services (“CMPAS”), Indiana Municipal \nPower Agency (“IMPA”), Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (“MJMEUC”), and WPPI \nEnergy (“WPPI”). \n3 Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Oct. \n13, 2026), eLibrary No. 20261013-5440 (“MISO Answer”). \n4 Motion to Intervene and Comments of Central Municipal Power Agency/Services, Indiana Municipal \nPower Agency, Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, and WPPI Energy (Sept. 18, 2026), \neLibrary No. 20260918-5272 (“Midwest TDUs Comments”). \n5 MISO, Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads (Aug. 28, 2026), eLibrary No. \n20260828-5278 (“MISO Filing”)."},{"page":2,"startToken":248,"endToken":534,"text":"- 2 - \n• Although MISO’s Answer confirms MISO’s intent not to impose its \nproposed Interconnection Reliability Requirements on distribution-\nconnected loads, it fails to show that this critical threshold issue is \nunambiguously addressed in the proposed Tariff language.  \n• MISO’s Answer fails to provide additional clarity as to how it will \neffectuate a Transmission Customer’s agreement with a Large Load that \nassigns one or more compliance responsibilities to the Large Load. \nMidwest TDUs appreciate MISO’s confirmation that Transmission \nCustomers may rely on such agreements to demonstrate compliance with \nthe Interconnection Reliability Requirements, but more clarity is needed to \nensure that they can do so in a manner that is efficient and not unduly \nburdensome.  \nThe Commission should therefore issue a deficiency letter directing MISO to \naddress these issues and require revisions to the proposed Tariff language reflecting the \nrequested clarifications.  \nI. \nMOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER \nThe Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure prohibit answers to answers \nunless otherwise authorized by the Commission,6 but the Commission has authority to \nwaive this prohibition for good cause.7 The Commission has found good cause to waive \nthe general prohibition on answers to answers where, among other things, the answer \nwould assist the Commission in its decision-making process.8 Midwest TDUs’ Answer to \nMISO’s Answer will aid the Commission’s understanding of the important issues \npresented by MISO’s Interconnection Reliability Requirements proposal. Midwest TDUs \nrespectfully request that the Commission grant leave to submit the following Answer. \n \n6 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2). \n7 Id. § 385.101(e). \n8 See, e.g., Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 191 FERC ¶ 61,131, P 24 (2025) (accepting answers to \nanswers “because they have provided information that assisted us in our decision-making process”)."},{"page":3,"startToken":534,"endToken":825,"text":"- 3 - \nII. \nANSWER \nA. \nFurther clarity is needed to ensure that MISO’s proposed \nInterconnection Reliability Requirements are limited to \nTransmission System-connected Large Loads.  \nMidwest TDUs appreciate MISO’s apparent confirmation that it intends for the \nproposed Interconnection Reliability Requirements to apply only “to Transmission \nCustomers taking Transmission Service on behalf of Large Loads connected to the MISO \nTransmission System.”9 This straightforward statement of the applicability of these \nrequirements is consistent with testimony that its Answer cites: “This filing proposes \nreliability requirements and a reliability-based framework applicable to Transmission \nCustomers taking Transmission Service on behalf of Large Load interconnected to the \nMISO Transmission System.”10 The brief discussion of this critical threshold point in \nMISO’s Answer, however, fails to resolve the potential for ambiguity in the proposed \nTariff language.  \nAs noted in our Comments at 6-7, MISO defines a Large Load as one “located at \na single substation behind one or more Point(s) of Withdrawal from the Transmission \nSystem,”11 with “Point(s) of Withdrawal” defined as “[t]he point(s) where a non-\ntransmission facility that is used to withdraw Energy from the Transmission System to \nserve Load connects to the Transmission System.”12 MISO’s definition, unlike the one in \nthe Commission’s Show Cause Order, does not specify that a Large Load “interconnects \n \n9 MISO Answer at 26 (emphasis added).  \n10 MISO Filing, Tab C, Prepared Direct Testimony of Beibei Li, Senior Manager of Strategic Assessment, \nTestimony at 15(emphasis added), included in testimony pages referenced in MISO’s Answer at 27. See \nalso Midwest TDUs Comments at 5 (summarizing similar references in MISO’s original filing).  \n11 MISO Filing, Tab A, Redline Tariff § 1.L (proposed definition of Large Load).  \n12 Id. § 1.P (proposed definition of Point(s) of Withdrawal)."},{"page":4,"startToken":825,"endToken":1151,"text":"- 4 - \nto the transmission system.”13 MISO’s Answer does not address the specific sources of \nconfusion in its proposed Tariff language that Midwest TDUs identified in our \nComments, such as how broadly “behind” the Point of Withdrawal from the \nTransmission System could extend without language specifying that a Large Load must \ninterconnect to the transmission system.14 Instead, MISO states that the references to the \nTransmission System in its proposed Tariff language means that “the [Interconnection \nReliability Requirements] Proposal does not create a free-standing MISO reliability \nregime for distribution-connected load that is not taking MISO Transmission Service.”15  \nUnfortunately, MISO’s explanation underscores the need for further specificity in \nthe proposed Tariff language. The relevant distinction for purposes of MISO’s Large \nLoad definition is not whether the Transmission Customer is “taking MISO Transmission \nService” on behalf of the load, since an Eligible Customer can take Transmission Service \non behalf of load interconnected to either the MISO Transmission System or a \ndistribution system.  \nRather, MISO’s Tariff language should explicitly define Large Loads as those that \n“interconnect[] to the transmission system,”16 which makes clear that the Interconnection \nReliability Requirements do not apply to distribution-connected loads.17 These \n \n13 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212, P 58 (2026) (“MISO Show Cause Order”).    \n14 See Midwest TDUs Comments at 6-7. \n15 MISO Answer at 27 (emphasis added).  \n16 MISO Show Cause Order P 58.  \n17 The Computational Load registry criteria discussed in Midwest TDUs’ Comments at 9 n.22 (quoting the \nproposed criteria which, among other things, require the load to be “connected at a voltage level greater \nthan or equal to 100 kV from one or more points of connection”) was just filed with this Commission. \nPetition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Revisions to the NERC \nRules of Procedure Regarding Computational Load and Request for Expedited Action, N. Am. Elec. \nReliability Corp., Docket No. RR27-1 (Oct. 21, 2026), eLibrary No. 20261021-5204."},{"page":5,"startToken":1151,"endToken":1396,"text":"- 5 - \nclarification is also consistent with the Commission’s Show Cause Order and MISO’s \napparent intent not to reach distribution-connected loads with its proposed \nInterconnection Reliability Requirements. \nB. \nThere remains uncertainty as to how Transmission Customers \ncan rely on their agreements with Large Loads to effectuate \ncompliance. \nMISO reiterates that “[t]he proposed Tariff expressly accommodates contractual \narrangements between the Transmission Customer and the Large Load,”18 but its Answer \nfails to provide more details as to how those contractual arrangements will be \naccommodated in practice. Clarification of these implementation details are important to \nensure that Transmission Customers are not unduly burdened by provisions intended to \naddress reliability concerns caused by Large Loads. Midwest TDUs do not repeat all of \nclarification issues raised in our earlier Comments that should be addressed,19 but we \nhighlight two specific shortcomings in MISO’s Answer.  \nFirst, although MISO’s Answer acknowledges that “an Agreement assigning \nrelevant performance and information duties to the Large Load may be part of a sufficient \ncompliance showing,”20 it appears to reject the idea that agreements between a Large \nLoad and the Transmission Customer can enable the Large Load to provide information \ndirectly to MISO. MISO states that it “must be able to obtain, through the Transmission \nCustomer, all information and operational access necessary” and that agreements can \n“establish[] the Transmission Customer’s access to the information needed for \n \n18 MISO Answer at 28.  \n19 Midwest TDUs Comments at 9-15.  \n20 MISO Answer at 28 (emphasis added)."},{"page":6,"startToken":1396,"endToken":1622,"text":"- 6 - \ncompliance.”21 MISO does not explain why it could not accept relevant information \ndirectly from the Large Load where a Large Load-Transmission Customer agreement \nexpressly assigns compliance responsibility to the Large Load.  \nTo the extent a Large Load enters into an agreement with the Transmission \nCustomer to expressly take on identified responsibilities for complying with \nInterconnection Reliability Requirements, MISO should not encumber that compliance \nby insisting that the Transmission Customer act as a middleman. While MISO says it \n“will continue working with Transmission Customers and Large Loads through \nimplementation to facilitate efficient compliance and provide education regarding the \nnew requirements,”22 the Commission should not permit MISO’s apparent insistence that \ninformation be needlessly funneled through the Transmission Customer. Where a Large \nLoad agrees to take on responsibility for compliance with an Interconnection Reliability \nRequirement, requiring the Transmission Customer to pass information from the Large \nLoad to MISO serves as a barrier to implementing agreements that facilitate efficient and \neffective compliance.  \nSecond, MISO’s Answer stops short of confirming that the list of potential \nconsequences in proposed section 37A is the exclusive list of consequences for \nnoncompliance with the proposed Interconnection Reliability Requirements.23 And while \nMISO states that this list is “not an automatic penalty schedule,”24 MISO does not state \n \n21 MISO Answer at 29 (emphasis added).  \n22 Id. \n23 Id.  \n24 Id. (emphasis added)"},{"page":7,"startToken":1622,"endToken":1897,"text":"- 7 - \nwhether, and in what circumstances, it might seek to impose penalties under section 37A \ndespite none being explicitly identified in that provision. Nor does it clarify (either in its \nAnswer or with revised proposed Tariff language) the scope of the potentially broad \ncatchall for “other remediation action(s)” in the provision of section 37A. As explained in \nMidwest TDUs’ Comments (at 13), it would be inappropriate to impose punitive \nconsequences such as financial penalties on the Transmission Customer when an \nInterconnection Reliably Requirement is not met by the Large Load assigned compliance \nresponsibility under an agreement. In these circumstances, the Tariff language in section \n37A should be clear that consequences of non-compliance should be tailored to address \nand prevent the reliability risks posed by Large Loads. \nRequiring additional clarity on these issues does not require MISO to establish \ndirect relationships with all Large Loads, nor does it alter that the Transmission Customer \nis the entity taking Transmission Service of behalf of the Large Load. Rather, Midwest \nTDUs’ Comments raised narrow questions about how MISO will effectuate agreements \nbetween a Large Load and the Transmission Customer where the Large Load has agreed \nto take on responsibilities for compliance with one or more of the Interconnection \nReliability Requirements. Given that the Large Loads are the source of the reliability \nconcerns driving the need for the Interconnection Reliability Requirements, it is \nappropriate for MISO to engage with those Large Loads that enter into agreements with a \nTransmission Customer to take on responsibility for compliance with those \nRequirements. Doing so will result in more efficient and effective implementation of \nthese important reliability requirements, without requiring a direct contractual"},{"page":8,"startToken":1897,"endToken":1996,"text":"- 8 - \nrelationship between MISO and the Large Load or relieving the Transmission Customer \nfrom its ultimate obligations under the MISO Tariff.  \nCONCLUSION \nFor the reasons discussed above, and in Midwest TDUs’ Comments, the \nCommission should ensure that the issues above are adequately clarified by MISO and \norder further Tariff revisions to the extent that MISO’s proposed language is not clear on \nthese issues.  \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n  /s/ Cynthia S. Bogorad \nCynthia S. Bogorad \nJeffrey M. Bayne \nAttorneys for Midwest TDUs \nLaw Offices of: \nSpiegel & McDiarmid LLP \n1818 N Street, NW \n8th Floor \nWashington, DC 20036 \n(202) 879-4000 \nOctober 28, 2026"},{"page":9,"startToken":1996,"endToken":2062,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing document to be served \nupon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this \nproceeding. \nDated on this 28th day of October, 2026. \n /s/ Jeffrey M. Bayne \nJeffrey M. Bayne \nLaw Offices of: \n \nSpiegel & McDiarmid LLP \n1818 N Street, NW \n8th Floor \nWashington, DC 20036 \n(202) 879-4000"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":2,"endAt":976,"startToken":0,"endToken":385},{"p":2,"at":976,"title":"I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":7,"startToken":385,"endToken":535},{"p":3,"at":7,"title":"II. Answer","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":3,"endAt":20,"startToken":535,"endToken":537},{"p":3,"at":20,"title":"A. Further clarity is needed to ensure that MISO’s proposed Interconnection Reliability Requirements are limited to Transmission System-connected Large Loads.","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":5,"endAt":211,"startToken":537,"endToken":1177},{"p":5,"at":211,"title":"B. There remains uncertainty as to how Transmission Customers can rely on their agreements with Large Loads to effectuate compliance.","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":8,"endAt":147,"startToken":1177,"endToken":1918},{"p":8,"at":147,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":9,"endAt":0,"startToken":1918,"endToken":1996},{"p":9,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":9,"endAt":404,"startToken":1996,"endToken":2062}]}