By Amanda Durish Cook

MISO Advisory Committee members decided there was nothing amiss in the stakeholder debate that ultimately shut down the possibility of creating a cost recovery mechanism for customer-funded transmission upgrades.

But supporters of the proposal contend the idea didn’t receive fair consideration.

During an Oct. 25 Advisory Committee call, Bruce Grabow, an attorney representing EDF Renewables, argued that MISO’s Regional Expansion Criteria and Benefits Working Group (RECBWG) did not understand the proposal, nor allow full debate before rejecting it this summer after deciding that after-the-fact cost allocation would be too complex to introduce.

“There wasn’t any discussion on whether this is really needed,” he added.

Grabow said the joint proposal — which would allow simple cost recovery of customer-funded upgrades from other transmission users directly benefiting from them — from EDF and Wind on the Wires (WOW) could be a “win-win” because it would initiate construction of needed sub-345-kV projects that would be otherwise overlooked in MISO’s annual Transmission Expansion Plan. (See Participant-funded Projects Get 2nd Shot at MISO Cost Recovery.)

But Advisory Committee members held that the RECBWG performed its due diligence before voting 15-4 to deny EDF and WOW another round of presentations on the topic. Voting in favor were Adam Sokolski and Mark Volpe of MISO’s Independent Power Producers sector, as well as WOW’s Beth Soholt, of the Environmental sector, and Adam McKinnie of the State Regulatory Authorities sector. Two state regulatory representatives ― Ted Thomas and Hwikwon Ham ― abstained from the vote.

“It’s not clear at all to me what … the shortcoming of process at the RECBWG was,” Entergy’s Matt Brown said. He pointed out that EDF and WOW were granted presentation time, a feedback gathering phase and follow-up at a later RECBWG meeting.

“[They’re saying] if only we understood the points, we’d agree. I’d argue that we understand and don’t agree. I don’t think what we have here is a misunderstanding of the proposal, but a disagreement of the merits of the proposal,” Brown said.

Steering Committee Chair Tia Elliott said she didn’t want similar Advisory Committee petitions cropping up whenever stakeholders were disappointed with the reception of their proposals. She maintained that the issue received proper consideration according to MISO’s stakeholder process, even if EDF and WOW didn’t like the outcome.

The discussion was a follow-up of one that took place at the last Advisory Committee meeting Sept. 20. “Although I think the proposal has some merits, the question is whether the stakeholder process was followed,” Kevin Murray, executive director of Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, had said then.

Soholt said EDF does not believe it was given sufficient time for stakeholders to explore the cost recovery proposal. “Going to the heart of the issue, it really goes to heavily congested areas and bringing in transmission,” said Soholt, who added that MISO has a problem in some cases luring transmission developers to build lines where they are most needed. She said the “narrow focus” of the proposal provides a solution.

“It looks like there’s just some dissatisfaction with the outcome of the process rather than any failure of the process,” Brown said. He also added that he disagreed with EDF’s assertion that MISO lacks a process for in identifying sub-345-kV projects.

Xcel Energy’s Carolyn Wetterlin, chair of the RECBWG, said the issue was given a fair hearing in the working group.

“I know there are times I have to work the agenda and cut discussion short, but I don’t recall that that was the case with this presentation,” Wetterlin said.

Murray said EDF and WOW are still free to lobby their case in front of MISO officials or file a complaint at FERC.