MISO’s repackaged proposal to establish a temporary fast track in its interconnection queue resulted in a familiar division among MISO stakeholders, with vertically integrated utilities campaigning for the proposal and clean energy organizations protesting.  

MISO in early June refiled the fast-track proposal, this time with a 68-project limit that includes special reservations for retail choice states and independent power producers. The grid operator managed to refile nearly 1,000 pages of tariff changes, explanation and testimony within three weeks (ER25-2454). (See MISO Reapplies for Generator Interconnection Fast Lane with FERC.)  

MISO committed to processing 10 fast-track applications per quarter for five quarters. Additionally, it added placeholders for 10 projects from independent power producers who have power purchase agreements with non-utility entities and an additional eight projects that can be submitted only by retail states for resource adequacy deficiencies. MISO would sunset the expedited process no later than mid-2027, or until the project limit is reached.  

Clean energy groups aren’t fans of the revised proposal.  

A joint filing from Sierra Club, Sustainable FERC Project and Union of Concerned Scientists, among others, said the proposal still confers “preferential access to thermal resources at the expense of renewable resources.” They said MISO again failed to establish why the fast track was mission-critical for resource adequacy.  

In a press release, Sierra Club said MISO submitted “a plan that will take place over many years and fails to justify the cap size it chose.” The nonprofit said MISO finalized the new plan “after a single stakeholder meeting that only allowed one round of Q&A and an informal exchange of ideas on how to improve the first discriminatory plan.” It also noted that the proposal’s 10-day comment period included two weekends, “giving all stakeholders only six working days to evaluate” and form responses to the new proposal.  

Advanced Energy United, the American Clean Power Association, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the Southern Renewable Energy Association and Clean Grid Alliance said MISO’s filing “retains many of the shortcomings” of the first while introducing new legal concerns. It said MISO should clarify that its guarantee of spots for independent power producers with non-load serving entity off-takers should not preclude them from competing for the 50 original spots.   

“Accepting MISO’s unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential proposal would undermine open access principles in the MISO region, derail the region’s existing generation queue, cast a pall of litigation risk over all stakeholders and ultimately jeopardize the long-term reliability and resource adequacy of the region,” the quintet wrote in a joint protest.  

The Michigan Public Service Commission argued that MISO’s refile “still gives rise to discrimination [and] lacks sufficient enforcement of shovel readiness and project completion.” It said MISO’s plan to cap the megawatt value of expedited projects at 150% of an identified need might shut out meaningful participation by renewable energy developers. The state commission also complained that MISO’s hurried refile and ensuing six-day comment period at FERC didn’t allow for stakeholder discussion or modifications based on suggestions. It asked FERC to reject the proposal and direct MISO to turn to its stakeholders to draft a more collaborative solution.   

Invenergy protested that MISO’s restyled proposal still vests regulators with “nearly unbounded discretion to select projects, without any objective criteria to judge whether such projects are capable of satisfying MISO’s resource adequacy needs.” It said MISO ignored FERC commissioners’ request that MISO retry with a narrowly tailored proposal.  

Competitive supplier Vistra Corp., which operates in Illinois, asked that FERC order an amendment to MISO’s proposal that gives independent producers until Dec. 1, 2025, instead of Sept. 1, to submit their projects for expedited treatment. It said MISO’s timelines are “too aggressive” for independents to contract with customers and meaningfully participate in the fast-track process “on a level playing field.”  

As they did the first time around, utilities chimed in to reaffirm their support.  

WEC Energy Group said the fast track is an “innovative solution” that would address an “urgent need for new generation resources.”  

Alliant Energy said MISO’s existing queue alone doesn’t provide a sufficient avenue for bringing critical generation online quickly. It also said MISO’s design doesn’t run afoul of FERC’s open access philosophy because it “does not restrict the type of generation facility that may apply or the entity which can submit.” Entergy and Cleco agreed in joint comments that MISO’s current framework “is not suited to address the need for immediate new resource additions.”  

Big Rivers Electric Corp. said the expedited treatment would ensure that load-serving entities “can meet their state-mandated obligations to reliably serve load.” It added that MISO’s resource adequacy challenges are “concrete and urgent.”  

Northern Indiana Public Service Co., Ottertail Power Co., DTE Electric, Ameren and Consumers Energy also registered support.

At a June 18 Louisiana Public Service Commission meeting, MISO’s Todd Hillman reviewed MISO’s additions of the project maximum, the limited number of cycles with a 2027 end date and allocation of projects for some independent power producers and MISO’s retail choice areas. He said the combination of those new elements should satisfy FERC’s initial concerns with the proposal and should “answer many if not all of their questions.”  

Commissioner Davante Lewis asked how MISO’s fast lane would avoid a “two-tier interconnection system that disadvantages” some projects and favors others.  

Hillman said MISO will work simultaneously over the next few years to get its normal queue down to a one-year process. He said the RTO is “confident” it can shorten time frames with the help of a new annual megawatt cap, AI-based software and some existing projects moving to the express lane.  

“They’re moving in parallel; they’re not really moving against each other,” Hillman said of the regular queue and the express lane.