Northern Indiana Public Service Co. replied to comments on and protests to its request that FERC allow it to recover the costs of continuing to operate the R.M. Schahfer Generating Station from the 11 states in MISO Midwest, insisting that it is the quickest solution (EL26-36).
The utility said waiting for the states to create a cost allocation method through the MISO stakeholder process would unnecessarily delay its requested relief after being forced to keep the plant online past its scheduled retirement by the U.S. Department of Energy.
If approved by FERC, Schahfer would follow in the footsteps of the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan, which is also operating under an emergency order from DOE under Federal Power Act Section 202(c) and was granted a MISO Midwest-wide allocation.
In an early February response, NIPSCO said many of the challenges to its request rest on the lawfulness of the order itself and “amount to an impermissible collateral attack on action taken by the U.S. secretary of energy.”
“The comments and protests raise issues that are outside the scope of this proceeding and impinge on NIPSCO’s constitutional and statutory rights to recover costs,” the utility said.
MISO states had asked FERC to order discussion in the RTO’s stakeholder process to settle on a cost allocation design. (See Regulators: MISO Stakeholders Should Decide Cost-sharing for DOE Coal Plant Orders.) The Organization of MISO States said DOE’s “self-determined energy emergency does not obviate the commission’s obligation to establish just and reasonable rates.”
In mid-2025, DOE began issuing emergency orders under Section 202(c) to keep power plants in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Colorado and Washington online past their scheduled retirement dates. OMS said a cost allocation design should be formed with input from the states affected, especially because DOE is likely to continue ordering other retiring thermal units to stay online.
But NIPSCO said rate recovery issues are FERC’s domain, not a MISO stakeholder process matter. It argued that there is no harm in allowing a regionwide cost allocation because it has not yet sought to recover the costs of keeping the coal plant available. It said interested parties would be free to review and contest it when it does, regardless of allocation.
“Establishing a mechanism now does not prejudice any party’s rights,” NIPSCO said.
The utility also said it is “incurring significant capital, operating and maintenance costs to comply with these directives.” It said delays would undermine its “ability to recover costs it is legally obligated to incur.”
