By Chris O’Malley

CARMEL, Ind. — Stinging from objections to Entergy’s proposed Lake Charles transmission upgrade, MISO has launched discussions that could lead to refinements in its procedures for handling out-of-cycle requests.

The procedural review was initiated after transmission developers and independent power producers objected to staff recommendations that the MISO Board of Directors approve Entergy’s six out-of-cycle requests. The largest and most controversial request is a $187 million transmission upgrade that it says is needed to support new industrial development around Lake Charles, La. (See MISO Staff Hold Firm on Entergy Out-of-Cycle Request.)

The MISO board could vote on the requests Thursday.

“We really want you guys to dig in and really tell us how you believe things should be,” Matthew Tackett, a MISO principal advisor, told the Planning Advisory Committee on Wednesday.

Stakeholders have challenged Entergy’s load projections and questioned its assertion that the projects were needed to meet base reliability needs. They’ve also alleged that MISO failed to follow its Business Practices Manual and that it provided only limited opportunity for stakeholder review.

Entergy said the need to serve additional industrial load wasn’t realized until after the conclusion of the annual MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP) process. MISO officials said Entergy’s out-of-cycle request was consistent with publicly announced industrial plant expansions and economic growth data for Lake Charles. MISO said Entergy has not shared some specifics about the projected new load growth, citing customer confidentiality.

Ambiguities?

One issue rising out of the Entergy request is tariff language that states that an out-of-cycle project review must be driven by “urgent” needs that require an expedited review.

MISO’s Business Practices Manual states that such out-of-cycle projects have a need date within three years and an expected in-service date within four years of an OOC project submission. George Dawe of Duke-American Transmission Co., who represents the Transmission Developers sector, sought a rationale for the difference between need date and in-service date.

“I agree that the language as written could use some improvement,” Tackett said.

The term “urgent” could “be a little bit ambiguous,” said Tia Elliott, director of regulatory affairs at NRG Energy.

Tackett said the review ultimately comes down to striking a balance between adequate stakeholder vetting and successfully addressing the need “in a timely manner.”

Dawe has complained that MISO’s review of Entergy’s request seemed rushed and predestined for approval.

Tackett stressed that the out-of-cycle approval process is designed for special circumstances, not for long-term projects that ordinarily would be reviewed within MTEP.

He also said MISO has limited authority to override or invalidate a distribution company’s load forecasts. He noted, however, that load modifications often have to be reviewed by state utility regulators.

Steve Leovy, a transmission engineer at WPPI Energy, suggested MISO could perform studies during the MTEP process that anticipate and model future expansions so that it could be better prepared for significant demand-forecast changes.

Tackett invited stakeholders to offer comments and to provide redlined versions of the Business Practices Manual by May 15.

A summary of comments and suggestions will be presented at the June Planning Advisory Committee meeting.