An alliance of consumer groups has asked FERC to address its 2022 joint complaint against MISO’s practice of deferring to state right of first refusal (ROFR) laws in its regional transmission planning.

The alliance — which includes the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers and others — said “despite the significant rate impact on consumers, the commission has not ruled on the complaint” (EL22-78).

In the summer of 2022, the consumer alliance asked FERC to block MISO and other RTOs from applying “anticompetitive” state ROFR laws to their regional transmission planning and cost allocation processes. The group said MISO shouldn’t hamstring itself by maintaining tariff provisions that prohibit it from holding a competitive solicitation for regionally cost allocated projects. It also argued that state-level ROFRs interfere with FERC’s “exclusive jurisdiction to set just and reasonable rates for transmission in interstate commerce.” (See Consumer Groups File FERC Complaint Against MISO.)

Now the alliance has said FERC’s inaction has allowed uncertainty to fester, as evidenced by MISO asking an Iowa court to lift an injunction against some of its long-range transmission plan (LRTP) after Iowa’s ROFR was deemed unconstitutional. (See MISO Asks Court for Injunction Reversal on Iowa LRTP Projects.) The group said MISO’s argument that FERC alone has the power to oversee any change in developers coincides with its complaint that FERC should be able to override state-level ROFRs in transmission planning.

The consumer alliance said the litigation and delay among the Iowa LRTP projects are a “concrete example” that it’s unreasonable for MISO to continue to yield to state ROFRs.

“The ROFR law exception in MISO’s tariff — as played out in the state of Iowa — has hampered MISO’s ability to select the more efficient or cost-effective developer in a timely manner or to effectively facilitate transmission development subject to the commission’s exclusive jurisdiction. And now MISO asserts that its determination to skip competition cannot be undone by a state court ruling that the law was unconstitutional from the inception,” the alliance argued.