The MISO Independent Market Monitor insisted to FERC that MISO’s own rules allow him to assess transmission. Market monitors of other grid operators backed him up.  

MISO’s transmission owners, on the other hand, remain steadfast with MISO that it’s inappropriate for the IMM to critique transmission planning and expect compensation (EL25-80).  

The varied opinions sent to FERC were in response to MISO’s May petition for a declaratory order on whether it’s proper for the IMM to analyze the value of proposed transmission portfolios in addition to markets. (See MISO Intent on Answers as to IMM Role in Tx Planning and MISO IMM to State Regulators: Good Intentions Behind LRTP Criticism.)  

IMM David Patton argued the RTO’s tariff “unambiguously authorizes” him to monitor market impacts of MISO’s transmission planning.  

Patton cited a tariff section on monitoring duties that listed evaluation of “competitive or other market impacts of tariffs and agreements, or other rules, standards or procedures, or any other transmission provider or market participant actions governing or affecting any of the markets and services.” He said the section is intentionally “broadly worded.”  

Patton requested that FERC deny MISO’s petition and find that the IMM is allowed to monitor transmission planning free from MISO’s impediment. He included an ask for fast-track status because he said he’s currently prevented from “monitoring transmission planning decisions that will have consequential market impacts.”  

“We also note that almost all the MISO states support the IMM’s role in monitoring of MISO’s transmission planning and have raised concerns about MISO’s attempts to suppress the views of the IMM,” Patton wrote in a June 13 response.  

MISO argues the IMM’s perspective on its transmission studies is “supported by [neither] the commission’s policy statement on Market Monitoring Units nor Order No. 719.” MISO said beginning in 2023, it noticed the IMM was “expanding the scope of its activities by initiating unsolicited monitoring, evaluations and analyses” of MISO’s long-range transmission planning (LRTP) while seeking reimbursement.  

According to MISO, the IMM has billed it for about 600 hours of “unsolicited” monitoring of LRTP between 2023 and 2024, totaling about $300,000.  

Patton was a vocal opponent of MISO’s second long-range transmission plan (LRTP) portfolio throughout 2024, repeatedly telling planners they were overstating the benefits of the collection of mostly 765-kV lines and deeming the 20-year future assumptions that transmission needs were established upon unrealistic. Patton argued for a downsized portfolio. (See MISO IMM Makes Closing Arguments Against $21.8B Long-range Tx Plan and $21.8B Long-range Tx Plan Goes to Membership Vote; MISO Resolute, IMM Protesting.)  

Patton said the tariff’s Module D, which contains a MISO-IMM monitoring plan, “expressly empowers the IMM to monitor activities that the IMM ‘deems relevant’” and include reviewing agreements, rules, standards and procedures, in addition to other activities that have market impacts or can affect services. He said it’s “apparent that transmission planning decisions substantially affect the MISO’s market and services.”  

Patton said FERC and the courts have decided “repeatedly” that transmission planning affects grid operators’ markets.  

MISO says that view is a slippery slope. Having the IMM review so many aspects “could disrupt the efficient operations at MISO and introduce unnecessary costs, which all, in turn, could impact reliability and the benefits received by MISO members.”

Patton said there’s no evidence to support MISO’s claim.  

“On the contrary, in nearly every case where the IMM has raised concerns regarding MISO’s actions, MISO has worked collaboratively to make improvements that have yielded substantial efficiency benefits and other savings,” Patton said.  

‘Unsolicited’

Patton objected to MISO’s description of the planning advice as “unsolicited.” He said MISO does not “solicit” market monitoring “particularly when MISO is the focus of the monitoring.” 

“It is likely that all monitored entities, whether market participants or MISO itself, would view investigations by the IMM to be ‘unsolicited’ since no target of our monitoring and investigation would ever voluntarily solicit such activity by the IMM,” Patton reasoned.  

Patton pointed out that the MISO board of directors had requested that he discuss his divergent view of the MISO transmission planning futures and benefits estimates with RTO staff. He also said MISO reserved time for his presentations at LRTP workshops and stakeholder meetings.  

Patton also said he was offended that MISO seemed to suggest his reviews of LRTP assumptions were motivated by money.  

“MISO seems to be implying that our monitoring of transmission planning is motivated by a desire for increased compensation, which is offensive and baseless. Like all market monitoring work, we bill our work on an hourly basis. The only reason the hours related to transmission planning monitoring have increased in the past two years above the historical level of effort in the prior 20 is due to the profound concerns that we have uncovered with MISO’s most recent determinations,” Patton said. He said the $300,000 billed over 2023 and 2024 represents less than 2% of the MISO IMM budget and didn’t push MISO’s IMM spending over budget.  

Patton said market monitors in other regions like NYISO and PJM monitor transmission planning. He said that “further demonstrates that our actions with respect to MISO’s LRTP were in no way abnormal or out of step with the commission’s requirements.”  

PJM IMM Supports MISO IMM 

PJM’s Independent Market Monitor said MISO appeared to be trying to “curtail” its IMM. Monitoring related to transmission planning is “within the proper scope of the market monitoring function.” The PJM IMM said MISO’s petition “represents an unreasonable intrusion” into the IMM’s independence. It sided with Patton that MISO’s tariff “clearly” authorizes the Monitor to keep an eye on transmission planning.  

The Internal Market Monitor of ISO-NE said scrutinizing how effective markets are at signaling needed investment in generation and transmission is “indisputably within the bailiwick of an IMM.” The ISO-NE IMM argued that examining transmission planning for its impacts on the market is “two sides of the same coin.”  

“The performance and competitiveness of wholesale markets are inextricably linked to the operation, access arrangements and long-term planning of the transmission system,” the ISO-NE Monitor wrote.  

The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel and Maryland Office of People’s Counsel even registered support for the MISO IMM in a joint filing. They said the “activities performed are an important part of an IMM’s work in ensuring market fairness.”  

The Office of the Illinois Attorney General said it would be a “great disservice to ratepayers” if FERC were to agree with MISO and limit the IMM’s authority.  

MISO’s transmission owners, however, said “unsolicited monitoring and evaluation” of transmission planning is “beyond the bounds” of the IMM’s tariff-designated responsibilities.  

“While Potomac may undertake such activities of its own volition, it should not do so with the expectation of compensation from MISO, its members and their ratepayers,” the transmission owners said.  

Americans for a Clean Energy Grid expressed a similar sentiment: “Though the IMM serves a vital role in the operation of MISO’s markets, the tariff does not extend this role to transmission planning and monitoring activities.” The group agreed that MISO is under no obligation to reimburse the IMM for transmission evaluation.