{"document":{"slug":"protest-er27-25-bloom","title":"Limited Protest of Bloom Energy Corporation","issued":"2026-10-23","accession":"20261023-5195","docket":"ER27-25-000","group":"MISO Large Load Addition Resource Study (LARS)","filer":"Bloom Energy","kind":"limited protest","file":"sources/originals/20261023-5195_ER27-25_Bloom Energy Limited Protest_10-23-2026.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20261023-5195","sha256":"eba933de2a30cd94011b34ee09266ea9dab1be80ab03ed53c8f7e01c1d3404b2","pages":5,"tokens":1593,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":276,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \nMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.       )                            Docket No. ER27-25-000 \n \nLIMITED PROTEST OF BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION \n \nPursuant to Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § \n385.211, Bloom Energy Corporation (\"Bloom\") submits this limited protest of the October 2, \n2026 filing by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (\"MISO\") to establish the \nLarge Load Addition Resource Study (\"LARS\"). \nBloom supports LARS and urges the Commission to accept it by MISO's requested \nDecember 2, 2026 effective date. LARS solves a real problem: today, load and generation studies \nrun on different timelines, so each must wait on the other. By studying a large load and its paired \ngeneration in parallel, LARS removes that delay. It does so in a technology-neutral way, tying \ngeneration to load through a 150% cap. And it protects the Definitive Planning Phase (“DPP”) \nqueue from speculative entry through serial ten-pair cycles, deposits, milestone payment, and 15-\nyear pairing requirement. Bloom protests one element only: the 200 MW minimum load size. \nI. \nLimited Protest \nMISO bears the burden under FPA section 205 to show that each element of its proposal \nis just and reasonable. Its only evidence of transmission system impact does not support a 200 \nMW threshold. MISO initially proposed 250 MW, relying on Expedited Project Review (“EPR”) \nresults showing that loads of 250 MW and above created \"meaningful grid impacts,\" with \nupgrades \"increasingly likely between 300–500 MW.\"1 MISO then lowered the threshold to 200 \nMW, not on the basis of new analysis, but in response to stakeholder feedback that many projects \n \n1 Transmittal Letter at 3."},{"page":2,"startToken":276,"endToken":719,"text":"2 \n \nin the 200–250 MW range \"can have significant system impacts.\"2 MISO presents no EPR \nresults or other grid impact study for 200 MW, and none for loads below it. The 200 MW \nthreshold therefore rests on stakeholder assertion, not on transmission system data. The point is \nnot that MISO should have kept 250 MW; it is that MISO set aside the only impact data it \noffered without replacing it. Nothing in the record shows that a 75 MW or 150 MW load paired \nwith new generation presents a materially different study problem than a 200 MW load. \nThe 200 MW threshold departs from the Commission's framework and MISO's own \ndefinition of Large Load. The Show Cause Order identified a reasonable large load definition as \na single-site commercial or industrial customer with peak load of 50 MW or greater.3 MISO's \npending Interconnection Reliability Requirement filing adopts this 50 MW threshold.4 MISO \nconcedes the mismatch, noting that \"not all 'Large Loads' will be eligible\" for LARS,5 but offers \nno explanation for it. The Commission's concern with generation serving electrically proximate \nlarge loads is not limited to loads of 200 MW or more.6 \n \n2 Id. at 51; Prepared Direct Testimony of Christina Drake, Tab C, at 24:9-15 (“Drake Test.”). \n3 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 at P 58 (2026) (“Show Cause Order”). \n4 Midcontinent Indep. System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER26-3650-000 at Att. A (filed Aug. 28, 2026) \n(Large Load is defined as: “Load with Demand of 50 MW or more associated with any facility or \naggregation of facilities located at a single substation behind one or more Point(s) of Withdrawal from the \nTransmission System that is owned, operated, or controlled by: (a) a single entity, or (b) a group of \nentities that will coordinate with respect to the profile of the Load….”). \n5 Transmittal Letter at 1 n.4. \n6 Show Cause Order at PP 112–117 (“For purposes of this order, it appears to be reasonable to use the \nterm ‘electrically proximate large load’ to mean a large load, as defined in this order [50 MW and \nconnected at 69 kV and above], that is sufficiently electrically close to the interconnection customer’s \nrequested point of interconnection, such that the impact on the transmission system of the combination of \nthe generating facility and the load, with the exception of the transmission facilities between the two, will \nbe effectively the same as if they were located at the same substation.” Id. at P 112 (noting that the \nCommission will consider revisions to this definition that ensure it is tailored to MISO’s transmission \nsystem))."},{"page":3,"startToken":719,"endToken":1046,"text":"3 \n \nSection 205 prohibits any public utility from maintaining “any unreasonable difference in \nrates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect” between classes of service.7 A paired \nload and generation that interconnect to the Transmission System are similarly situated whether \nthe load is 75 MW or 200 MW. Each takes transmission service, each faces the study timing \nmismatch LARS cures, and each presents the same coordination problem. MISO must show that \npaired loads and generation below 200 MW affect the Transmission System differently. It has not \ndone so. \nMISO responds that the 200 MW minimum preserves LARS’s “focus on large, impactful \nload additions.”8 But MISO has already determined that loads of 50 MW or more are impactful \nenough to warrant its large load reliability requirements.9 MISO cannot treat those loads as large \nand impactful for reliability purposes yet not for the study process designed to integrate them. \nNor does the load size bear on the problem LARS solves – the timing mismatch between MISO’s \nload study and its generator interconnection queue arises for any paired load awaiting a \ngenerator’s GIA. And the ten-pair cap, not a size threshold, already preserves the focus of each \nstudy cycle.10 \nMISO's supporting testimony also relies on stakeholder feedback that data center loads \n\"come in 200 MW blocks,\"11 but cites no data. Industry sources indicate that data center capacity \nis typically built and energized in smaller increments.12 Smaller loads also fall within the \n \n7 16 U.S.C. § 824d(b). \n8 Transmittal Letter at 51. \n9 See supra note 4. \n10 See Transmittal Letter at 9.  \n11 Drake Test. at 24:11-13. \n12 See, e.g., Elevate Energy Consulting & GridLab, Practical Guidance and Considerations for Large \nLoad Interconnections at 20 and Fig. 2.3 (May 2025) (illustrating a 50 MW data center block within a 200 \nMW facility served through four points of connection), available at https://gridlab.org/portfolio-\nitem/practical-guidance-and-considerations-for-large-load-interconnections/; JLL, 2026 Global Data"},{"page":4,"startToken":1046,"endToken":1377,"text":"4 \n \nindustrial category that MISO expressly sought to reach by lowering the threshold.13 \nAdditionally, other RTOs apply materially lower thresholds; Southwest Power Pool's High \nImpact Large Load Generation Assessment framework, for example, applies to loads of greater \nthan 10 MW.14  \nThe proper screen for LARS is interconnection of Large Load to the Transmission \nSystem, not load size. MISO’s own Large Load definition draws that exact line: it applies to \nloads of 50 MW or more that connect to the Transmission System. That definition implements \nthe Commission’s direction to tailor the large load definition to MISO’s system.15 LARS itself \nrequires that the paired load’s Point of Withdrawal connect to the Transmission System. The 200 \nMW minimum is the only thing separating the two, and MISO offers no transmission-based \nreason for departing from the Show Cause Order. LARS should therefore apply to loads of 50 \nMW or more that connect to the Transmission System. A 75 MW load connected to the 115-161 \nkV network that must await a paired generator's GIA faces the same delay as a 200 MW load. \nNor is a 200 MW minimum needed to protect the process. MISO's other safeguards \nalready screen out speculative and de minimis requests: the $250,000 non-refundable deposit, the \nmilestone payment, full site control, and the bar on aggregating multiple loads.16 And the pairing \nagreement, the same LRZ requirement, and the 15-year commitment – not load size – are what \nkeep LARS from becoming a bypass of the competitive DPP queue. A 200 MW minimum load \nsize adds no protection beyond what these safeguards already provide. \n \nCenter Outlook (Jan. 2026) (reporting an average global build time of 18 months for a new 50 MW data \ncenter), available at https://www.jll.com/en-us/insights/market-outlook/data-center-outlook. \n13 Transmittal Letter at 3, 51. \n14 See Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 194 FERC ¶ 61,031 (2026). \n15 Show Cause Order at P 58. \n16 Transmittal Letter at 9, 11, 25; Drake Test. at 24–25."},{"page":5,"startToken":1377,"endToken":1593,"text":"5 \n \nFinally, if the Commission agrees that the minimum load size should be lowered, it \nshould direct a conforming change to Section 3.12.2, which separately requires at least 200 MW \nof Network Resource Interconnection Service at each Point of Interconnection. That generation-\nside minimum derives from the load threshold and should scale with it, so that a qualifying load \ncan be served by appropriately sized generation. \nII. \nConclusion \nBloom does not ask the Commission to delay LARS. Bloom respectfully requests that the \nCommission (1) accept LARS effective December 2, 2026; and (2) direct MISO, in a compliance \nfiling within 60 days, either to (a) align LARS eligibility with MISO's Large Load definition, \nwith a corresponding generation-side minimum, or (b) provide record evidence that loads below \n200 MW connected to the Transmission System do not warrant coordinated study.  \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n/s/ Joel D. Newton \n \nJoel D. Newton \nVP, Regulatory Law \nBloom Energy Corporation \n4353 North First Street \nSan Jose, CA  95134 \njoel.newton@bloomenergy.com \n(202) 329-1119 \nOctober 23, 2026 \n \n \nCertificate of Service \nI hereby certify that I have served the foregoing document on all persons listed on the \nCommission’s official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. \nDated at Falls Church, VA this 23rd day of October, 2026. \n \n \n \n \n/s/ Joel D. Newton"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":1206,"startToken":0,"endToken":177},{"p":1,"at":1206,"title":"I. Limited Protest","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":428,"startToken":177,"endToken":1445},{"p":5,"at":428,"title":"II. Conclusion","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":433,"startToken":1445,"endToken":1446},{"p":5,"at":433,"title":"Conclusion","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":1120,"startToken":1446,"endToken":1548},{"p":5,"at":1120,"title":"Certificate of Service","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":1400,"startToken":1548,"endToken":1593}]}