NEW ORLEANS — MISO confirmed it’s taking steps to get answers from FERC about the role the Independent Market Monitor should have — if any — in transmission planning.

During March Board Week, MISO Director Trip Doggett said the board was put in a tough position, with some members agreeing the IMM should monitor transmission expansion from an independent perspective and others vehemently opposed to the Monitor critiquing MISO’s planning in addition to market operations.

MISO board members on Feb. 14 ultimately passed a motion directing MISO to ask FERC whether it’s appropriate for the IMM to analyze the value of proposed transmission. In the meantime, MISO is to freeze any funding for independent scrutiny of transmission planning by the IMM until MISO gets clarity. (See Board Orders MISO to Get Answers on IMM’s Role in Tx Planning.)

The board drew up the motion following IMM David Patton’s vocal opposition to MISO’s nearly $22 billion long-range transmission portfolio over 2024.

“We felt like being responsible for the budget, we really couldn’t let the IMM continue until we have clarification,” Doggett explained at the March 11 Markets Committee of the MISO Board of Directors.

During a March 12 Advisory Committee meeting, MISO counsel Jacob Krause said MISO would pose the question to FERC sometime in the second quarter. MISO may file a petition for a declaratory order with FERC; the RTO has not confirmed that’s the route it will take.

Attorney Ken Stark, representing MISO’s end-use customers, said he found MISO’s intent to file problematic. Some state regulatory staff also have expressed concern over the appearance of MISO effectively shutting the IMM out of planning discussions for the time being.

During a March 13 MISO board meeting, Organization of MISO States President and Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner Joseph Sullivan said a few regulators have strong opinions about MISO temporarily withholding funding. He said OMS is following developments closely.

“We have agreed to disagree on that topic,” MISO Board Chair Todd Raba said, though he added MISO was working with FERC and the IMM to draft a filing.

Patton did not comment on the future filing over the course of Board Week, though in the past he’s said repeatedly that markets and transmission planning cannot be viewed in isolation because of their interdependence.

At a Feb. 25 OMS board meeting, Wisconsin Public Service Commissioner Marcus Hawkins said it was “surprising how the process played out,” with MISO leading the charge to stop payments to the IMM on transmission planning assessments. He pointed out that states and MISO are free to disagree with the Monitor’s independent views.

“[It] seems ironic that the only time that MISO has ever brought this up is when the IMM disagrees with its transmission planning,” said Bill Booth, consultant to the Mississippi Public Service Commission. He questioned whether MISO was trying to “silence” its IMM.