Order dismissing Eolian's request for rehearing and clarification of the June 18, 2026 MISO show-cause order
Back to sections and commentaryWord notes use stable document IDs, such as [fn:8], which can differ from printed footnote numbers.
Document text
196 FERC ¶ 61,217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Laura V. Swett, Chairman;
David Rosner, Lindsay S. See,
Judy W. Chang, and David LaCerte.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
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
Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
Docket No.
EL26-70-001
ORDER DISMISSING REQUEST FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION
(Issued September 21, 2026)
On June 18, 2026, the Commission issued an order under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)[fn:2] initiating a show cause proceeding directing Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and the Transmission Owners[fn:3] to explain why MISO’s Open Access Transmission, Energy, and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff (Tariff) remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or propose Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.[fn:4] On July 20, 2026, Eolian, L.P. (Eolian) filed a request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing.
Pursuant to Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC,[fn:5] the rehearing request filed in this proceeding may be deemed denied by operation of law. However, we are dismissing Eolian’s request for rehearing and clarification, as discussed below.
Show Cause Order
In the Show Cause Order, the Commission found that MISO’s existing Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential because it lacks certain provisions related to large loads and co-located loads and instituted a show cause proceeding pursuant to FPA section 206.[fn:6] The Commission directed MISO and the Transmission Owners, within 60 days of the date of the Show Cause Order, i.e., by August 17, 2026, to either explain why MISO’s Tariff remains just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential without certain Tariff provisions addressing large loads and co-located loads, or propose Tariff revisions addressing the Commission’s concerns.[fn:7]
Specifically, the Commission made preliminary findings that MISO’s existing Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential because it lacks provisions addressing: (1) the application process, study procedures, and ongoing operational requirements that apply to Eligible Customers seeking transmission service on behalf of large loads;[fn:8] (2) additional transparency concerning the Network Upgrade costs to provide transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads, a pro forma cost recovery agreement to mitigate the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers, and a mechanism to ensure such payments are appropriately credited toward transmission owners’ transmission revenue requirements consistent with the Commission’s cost-of-service regulations; (3) the rates, terms, and conditions of service that apply to co-location arrangements; (4) 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 that are willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system under certain conditions; and (5) the rates, terms, and conditions of service applicable to interconnection customers serving electrically proximate large load or co-located load.[fn:9]
On August 14, 2026, the Commission granted the motion for abeyance filed by MISO and the MISO Transmission Owners,[fn:10] such that responses to the Show Cause Order will be due on November 16, 2026, and answers to responses will be due on December 16, 2026.[fn:11] The Commission also stated that if MISO or the Transmission Owners submit an FPA section 205 filing addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order on or before November 16, 2026, then the obligation of the respondent(s) who have made such an FPA section 205 filing to file a response to the Show Cause Order will be suspended, and the show cause proceeding will continue to be held in abeyance pending further Commission directive in the show cause proceeding.[fn:12]
Eolian Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative, Rehearing
Eolian requests clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing to provide that electrically proximate generation may access permanent load-limited generator interconnection service where it is equally capable of enabling the large load to limit its withdrawals from the transmission system on a long-term basis without creating system reliability risks.[fn:13] Eolian contends that the Show Cause Order limits MISO’s ability to put in place a replacement rate that will ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates by not requiring or by limiting its ability to adopt a permanent load-limited generator interconnection service for front-of-the-meter resources that are capable of enabling large loads to limit their withdrawals from the transmission system under certain conditions on a long-term basis without resulting reliability concerns.[fn:14] Eolian argues that this limitation would create a significant barrier to large loads’ ability to use the new transmission services directed under the Show Cause Order, and therefore would significantly impair the ability of the Show Cause Order to ensure just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates.[fn:15]
Eolian also requests rehearing or clarification to clarify that any flexibility to tailor the generator interconnection reforms to the unique circumstances of the region must be paired with an obligation for MISO to show that the reforms will enable a pathway for significant generating capacity to provide load-limited interconnection.[fn:16] Eolian argues that the Show Cause Order includes some language that could be interpreted such that it gives flexibility to MISO to adopt minimal reforms that do not achieve the objectives of ensuring just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory rates.[fn:17]
Discussion
Rule 713(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure permits requests for rehearing “of any final decision or other final order in a proceeding.”[fn:18] A final order imposes an obligation, denies a right, or fixes some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process.[fn:19] The Show Cause Order did none of those things. The Commission did not make any final decision or determination in the Show Cause Order on whether the MISO Tariff is unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential. The Commission determined only that the Tariff appears to be unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential and instituted an FPA section 206 show cause proceeding to reach a final determination on this issue.[fn:20] We therefore dismiss the request for rehearing, which concerns a Commission action that is not final and that will be succeeded by further Commission action.[fn:21]
For similar reasons, we also dismiss the request for clarification. The show cause proceeding has been held in abeyance until November 16, 2026, to allow MISO’s stakeholder process to continue so that MISO and the Transmission Owners may submit FPA section 205 filings addressing the Commission’s preliminary findings in the Show Cause Order.[fn:22] We do not intend to provide clarification or guidance with respect to the Show Cause Order while the show cause proceeding is held in abeyance.[fn:23] We encourage MISO, the Transmission Owners, and stakeholders to continue with the development of one or more FPA section 205 proposals.
The Commission orders:
Eolian’s request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing is hereby dismissed, as discussed in the body of this order.
By the Commission.
( S E A L )
Carlos D. Clay,
Deputy Secretary.
Footnotes
[fn:2] 16 U.S.C. § 824e.
[fn:3] Transmission Owners refers to the entities listed in the caption to this order.
[fn:4] Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212, at PP 3, 32, errata notice, 196 FERC ¶ 61,123 (2026) (Show Cause Order). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Tariff.
[fn:5] 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).
[fn:6] Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 at PP 3, 32.
[fn:7] Id. P 3.
[fn:8] While the Commission stated that “it appears that it would be reasonable to define a large load as a new, commercial or industrial customer, located at a single site behind one or more points of interconnection, and that has a peak load of 50 MW or greater, interconnects to the transmission system at a voltage level of greater than 69 kV, and is not part of a co-location arrangement,” the Commission also stated that MISO could propose Tariff revisions establishing its own definition of large load. Id. P 58.
[fn:9] Id. PP 3, 32.
[fn:10] The MISO Transmission Owners include: AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company; Ameren Services Company, as agent for Union Electric Company, Ameren Illinois Company; American Transmission Company LLC; Big Rivers Electric Corporation; Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Citizens Electric Corporation; City Water, Light & Power (Springfield, IL); Cleco Power LLC; Cooperative Energy; Dairyland Power Cooperative; Duke Energy Business Services, LLC for Duke Energy Indiana, LLC; East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Entergy Arkansas, LLC; Entergy Louisiana, LLC; Entergy Mississippi, LLC; Entergy New Orleans, LLC; Entergy Texas, Inc.; Great River Energy; GridLiance Heartland LLC; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Indiana Municipal Power Agency; Indianapolis Power & Light Company; International Transmission Company; ITC Midwest LLC; Lafayette Utilities System; Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC; MidAmerican Energy Company; Minnesota Power (and its subsidiary Superior Water, L&P); Missouri River Energy Services; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.; Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC; Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, and Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, subsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc.; Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company; Otter Tail Power Company; Prairie Power, Inc.; Republic Transmission, LLC; Southern Illinois Power Cooperative; Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company; Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.; and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
[fn:11] Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 196 FERC ¶ 61,133, at PP 8-9 (2026) (Abeyance Order).
[fn:12] Id. P 10.
[fn:13] Eolian Request at 3, 4-14. Eolian states that load-limited generator interconnection service “is premised on the generator’s commitment to limiting its output to match the consumption of the load it is supporting.” Id., attach. A (Aff. of Andrew Levitt) at 3.
[fn:14] Id. at 3-4.
[fn:15] Id. at 4-5.
[fn:16] Id. at 16.
[fn:17] Id. at 3-4, 14-16.
[fn:18] 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(b) (2025); see also 16 U.S.C. § 825l(a) (parties “aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in a proceeding . . . may apply for a rehearing within 30 days after the issuance of such order”).
[fn:19] Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 324 F.3d 726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[f]inal agency action ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process’ and is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow”’) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997)).
[fn:20] See, e.g., Show Cause Order, 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 at PP 3, 32-33.
[fn:21] See, e.g., Westlands Transmission, LLC, 177 FERC ¶ 61,175, at P 4 (2021); Red Horse Wind 2, LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,147, at P 3 (2020); BridgeTex Pipeline Co., LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,111, at PP 10-12 (2018); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 162 FERC ¶ 61,246, at PP 6-7 (2018); Talen Energy Mktg., LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,077, at PP 3-4 (2017).
[fn:22] Abeyance Order, 196 FERC ¶ 61,133 at PP 8-10.
[fn:23] The Commission possesses “broad power to structure the proceedings before it.” Papago Tribal Util. Auth. v. FERC, 628 F.2d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting La. Power & Light Co. v. FPC, 536 F.2d 898, 910 (5th Cir. 1976)).
header1 (Word template)
- 1 -
header2 (Word template)
Docket No. EL26-70-001 - 1 -