Louisiana and Mississippi regulators have joined FERC, MISO and the RTO’s transmission owners in asking an appellate court to reject LS Power’s campaign for regional cost sharing of transmission projects as low as 100 kV.

MISO last year overhauled its cost allocation procedures, lowering the voltage threshold for market efficiency projects that are regionally cost shared from 345 kV to 230 kV, adding two new benefit metrics and eliminating a 20% footprint-wide postage stamp allocation. (See MISO Cost Allocation Plan Wins OK on 3rd Round.)

FERC rejected LS Power’s rehearing requests and complaint that a further reduction to 100 kV was necessary, concluding that the 230-kV threshold would spur more economic projects and sufficiently expand the number eligible for competition. (See FERC Spurns LS Power’s Voltage Threshold Argument.) LS Power soon took its argument to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to overturn FERC’s ruling (20-1465).

The Louisiana and Mississippi public service commissions filed a joint brief Aug. 9 in opposition to LS Power’s petition, the same day as a joint brief by MISO and its TOs. FERC defended its ruling in a brief July 26.

“The 230-kV threshold enjoyed broad stakeholder support after a long, comprehensive stakeholder process, represented a compromise supported by a majority of [MISO] stakeholders and was supported by substantial evidence. The courts and FERC have acknowledged the importance of the stakeholder process; unanimity is not required,” the Louisiana and Mississippi PSCs said.

The two said LS Power was attempting to preempt “years of extensive negotiations” between MISO, stakeholders, regulators, load-serving entities, generation owners and independent transmission owners.

“LS Power participated extensively but was simply dissatisfied with the results… FERC looks for general support for the broad outline of a cost allocation proposal, not at individual preferences within the stakeholder process,” the PSCs said. “Unilateral, non-vetted changes to the [MISO] tariff filing would have disrupted the compromise reached among a majority of stakeholders.”

MISO and its TOs agreed with FERC that LS Power lacked standing to challenge the ruling and insisted the commission had properly followed precedent in approving MISO’s proposal.

“Petitioners do not dispute that the 230-kV threshold is an improvement over the then-effective 345-kV threshold, but blame FERC for taking a `half-measure’ by not mandating a lower threshold,” they said. “Having found evidence to support the 230-kV threshold (as part of a package of improvements) as just and reasonable, FERC correctly rejected petitioners’ alternative voltage threshold. … Whether there is evidence to support a finding that a lower threshold may also be just and reasonable is irrelevant.” Louisiana and Mississippi regulators said MISO’s cost allocation plan followed Order 1000’s directive that costs assigned are roughly commensurate with benefits received.

In MISO, projects between 100 kV and 230 kV that don’t fit into any other of MISO’s project category are classified as economic “other” projects and cost allocated only to the transmission pricing zone in which they are located.

LS Power argued that FERC’s refusal to order a lower threshold ran counter to 2018’s Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. FERC (17-1040), in which the D.C. Circuit ruled FERC erred when it prohibited cost sharing for a class of high-voltage projects that demonstrated significant regional benefits.

But the state commissions said that LS Power failed to show that projects between 100 kV and 230 kV consistently produce broad, regional benefits. They also said LS Power was misguided in its decision to invoke Northern Indiana Public Service Co.’s 2013 complaint over the PJM-MISO seam, which resulted in FERC eliminating a cost minimum and lowering the voltage threshold for MISO-PJM interregional projects to 100 kV. The states said the 100-kV threshold ordered in that case was not meant to apply to all circumstances.

“The [NIPSCO] orders dealt with circumstances and long-standing issues specific to the [MISO]-PJM seam and interregional projects…. Those orders offer no precedent here,” they said.