The Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America have mounted a challenge to MISO’s proposed method for building portions of long-range transmission projects that cross into PJM.
The competition and consumer groups entered a protest with FERC on MISO’s plan to implement “agreements with external transmission owners to fund, construct, own and operate new transmission facilities serving MISO needs but located outside the MISO region” (ER26-1538).
In question: about $1.95 billion worth of mostly greenfield transmission projects in Illinois and Indiana that stretch into PJM but are considered part of MISO’s second, $22 billion long-range transmission portfolio. MISO said “certain PJM-based tie-line transmission and substation facilities were included in several” of the long-range transmission projects.
MISO wants to create new tariff provisions to assign projects directly to PJM transmission owners, bypassing competitive solicitations. The RTO plans to call them “Do No Harm” projects and use PJM’s “supplemental project” designation. MISO said it cannot apply its competitive bidding process to the select group of projects because they are outside of MISO.
MISO reasoned that its “authority as the transmission provider extends to the MISO transmission system only.” It said it plans to execute several proposed “Cost Recovery and Funding Agreements” with PJM transmission owners.
But the Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America said MISO-planned long-range transmission projects outside of MISO don’t exist in a regulatory no-man’s land that requires a departure from the MISO tariff. They called MISO’s filing an “unsupported request for waiver and authority to bypass” FERC’s core transmission planning.
“MISO must follow its tariff, not institute a policy choice to circumvent transmission competition contrary to its tariff and Order No. 1000, and then seek approval from FERC to codify that policy choice,” the groups said in a March 30 protest.
The groups said MISO’s plan “rests on a false premise” that MISO can assert that FERC-mandated practices are “inapplicable” based on where a project is located.
They argued that if MISO can plan the transmission under the long-range framework pursuant to its tariff, then it’s subject to the tariff and MISO’s competitive developer selection process. They pointed out that MISO’s transmission expansion planning protocol “contains no geographic or topological restriction to transmission projects.”
“MISO’s filing, even if it could be considered just and reasonable on a prospective basis, cannot cure MISO’s violation of its existing tariff,” the two groups argued.
The duo said “neither MISO’s border nor the facilities under MISO’s operational control are static or geographically fixed” and that MISO’s borders constantly change as transmission owners add facilities, or join or leave MISO.
“MISO’s assertion that the [long-range] projects are located ‘in the PJM region’ is nothing more than a self-fulfilling policy choice by MISO to avoid competition,” they contended.
The groups argued there’s a better name for long-range projects outside of MISO: interregional projects.
They said even if FERC accepts MISO’s explanation that its projects can be in PJM, then MISO and PJM’s interregional planning process and joint operating agreement should take effect.
They said MISO attempted to “skirt” the interregional issue by disclosing it and PJM “discussed the MISO requested facilities as part of their Interregional Planning Stakeholder Advisory Committee.” But the two said that doesn’t answer the question as to whether MISO and PJM met the requirements of FERC’s Order 1000 and evaluated them as interregional projects.
Furthermore, the two argued PJM’s supplemental project category is a poor fit. The PJM category is meant for projects to meet transmission owners’ local planning criteria.
MISO-planned long-range transmission projects “have nothing to do with PJM transmission owner planning standards and criteria,” they told FERC.
Finally, the competition and industrial consumer organizations argued that MISO didn’t put forth a narrow or limited plan. They said MISO didn’t attempt to limit the number of projects eligible for direct, outside assignments; didn’t limit aggregate costs of projects put through the process; did not restrict use of the new treatment to projects named in its filing; and didn’t propose that FERC review or approve a determination method for projects that could circumvent competition or interregional planning.
“In effect, MISO asks the commission to grant it plenary discretion to determine when Order No. 1000 no longer applies. If accepted, there would be no limiting principle preventing MISO from applying this waiver approach repeatedly, including to projects of great scale and cost, thereby routing substantial volumes of regionally cost-allocated transmission investment outside FERC’s competitive and interregional safeguards,” the groups told FERC.
They said the filing “would establish a regime” that FERC’s Order 1000 was designed to protect against.
