NEW ORLEANS — A new group formed to represent electric ratepayer interests has raised questions about interactions between MISO’s Independent Market Monitor and the state regulatory agencies seeking to overturn the RTO’s $22 billion long-range transmission portfolio through a FERC complaint.
The publication of email records by Manifest Energy coincides with the MISO Board of Directors opening a “best practices review” of the IMM, although the board’s Markets Committee did not publicly cite a link between the two developments when it voted unanimously to begin the examination at a March 24 meeting.
Manifest Energy — which also uses the name Manifest American Energy — said it engaged consulting firm New Fundamentals to conduct an analysis using the firm’s Transmission Governance Intelligence section, which monitors transmission planning processes and regulatory dynamics. The analysis focused on communications related to a FERC complaint disputing the benefits of MISO’s second long-range transmission plan (LRTP) (EL25-109). (See MISO, Stakeholders Appeal to FERC to Leave Long-range Tx Plan Intact.)
The North Dakota-led complaint, which remains pending before FERC, could unravel MISO’s second long-range transmission portfolio and fundamentally alter how MISO plans its long-range transmission, one of the RTO’s raisons d’être.
“When billions of dollars and grid reliability are on the line, transparency is what allows decisions to move forward with credibility,” said New Fundamentals’ Claire Douglass, speaking on behalf of Manifest Energy in a press release. Douglass said Manifest Energy applauds the MISO board’s decision to take “good governance seriously.”
Manifest Energy describes itself as an apolitical initiative bringing together individuals from a range of communities and perspectives focused on lowering energy costs, strengthening grid reliability and improving transparency in how transmission decisions are made. The group said it is working to obtain nonprofit status.
The Emails
Email records obtained through multistate public records requests reviewed by Manifest Energy show that MISO IMM David Patton was included in — and in some instances responded to — April 2025 email communications referencing an “LRTP Complaint,” alongside state regulatory personnel, outside counsel and consultants associated with the complaint effort.
The records show the circulation of draft materials and invitations to calls concerning the complaint. Patton appears in multiple threads with instances of engagement; however, the records alone do not establish the extent of his role in developing the complaint.
Manifest Energy said the communications raise questions about how the IMM engages with stakeholders in proceedings that may later intersect with the Monitor’s official responsibilities.
Among those included in the communications was Bill Booth, currently a consultant to the Mississippi Public Service Commission, who at the time was working in connection with the North Dakota effort supporting the complaint. The records show Booth coordinating communications and circulating draft materials among participants.
In a July 2025 email that circulated a draft complaint titled “PLEASE READ TODAY — NDPSC Complaint re MISO Tranche 2.1 Benefit Calculations (DRAFT)” and marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” Booth wrote that he had received edits from Patton and that “they’re accurate.” Attachments referenced in that email were not included in the materials produced in response to the North Dakota Public Service Commission records request.
The records also show Patton was invited to a late June 2025 Microsoft Teams call labeled “Metrics Status.” The available records do not establish whether he attended.
In another July 2025 email concerning outreach to additional regulators, Booth wrote, “If we can defeat these metrics now, we won’t [h]ave to deal with them later,” when MISO South becomes the focus of long-range transmission planning.
By late July 2025, North Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana had joined the complaint.
In September 2025, the IMM filed comments in the docket in its official capacity, stating that “we find the arguments made in the complaint to generally be sound and accurate.” The filing does not describe the prior communications reflected in the emails.
MISO declined to comment to RTO Insider on whether its best practices review of the IMM is connected to the release of the emails obtained through state records requests.
MISO said a memo it circulated before the March 24 Markets Committee meeting serves as its comment on the matter. The memo said the RTO’s Markets Committee of the Board of Directors “has a fiduciary obligation to review the services of the” IMM to “ensure that we have the right objectives, and we are fully prepared to meet those objectives in a changing environment.”
Stakeholders who asked not to be identified noted a connection between MISO’s review and the release of the emails. Others said the depth of attention Patton appeared to dedicate to North Dakota staffers and others seemed unusual.
The RTO similarly didn’t respond to questions about whether its review would cover the collaboration that took place over 2025 or whether it believed that level of communication was appropriate.
MISO’s rules do not appear to explicitly prohibit the IMM from meetings or communications related to the complaint, including potential input on FERC filings.
Disputes over the degree to which the IMM should be involved in scrutinizing MISO’s transmission planning are not new for the RTO. In 2025, MISO petitioned FERC for a declaratory order to determine whether the RTO’s tariff authorizes the IMM to monitor transmission plans in addition to markets. FERC ultimately decided it’s proper for the IMM to do so — and be compensated by MISO. (See MISO IMM Contends He Should Have Role in Tx Oversight and FERC Sides with Market Monitor over MISO in Compensation Dispute.)
Patton has been outspoken in his opinion that MISO overstates the benefits of its long-range transmission and risks overinvesting by billions of dollars. (See MISO IMM Makes Closing Arguments Against $21.8B Long-range Tx Plan and $21.8B Long-range Tx Plan Goes to Membership Vote; MISO Resolute, IMM Protesting.)
Patton: Discussed Benefits Analysis — Nothing More
Patton said his involvement in the complaint was limited to explaining his own transmission cost-benefit analysis to the parties interested in filing. He said he neither strategized with the complainants nor helped them develop the complaint.
In a phone interview with RTO Insider, Patton said he sees it as his obligation to speak with any stakeholders about his analyses and presentations. He said his decision to speak with stakeholders on data points is not motivated by any potential complaints stakeholders might plan to file against MISO processes, saying it would make no difference.
“It had nothing to do with this being associated with a complaint,” Patton said. He noted that the LRTP complaint relies on his analyses, so it makes sense that complainants would seek him out.
Patton said any allegation that he prompted the complaint is untrue. He also said he never billed MISO for any discussions about the complaint.
He also recalled pushing back against requests to become involved in drafting the complaint. He said Manifest Energy appeared to be “manufacturing an interpretation” of what’s happening based on the emails.
Patton told RTO Insider that he had “no indication” from MISO that the best practices review is linked to the email release in any way.
“I talked to lots of people about my analyses,” he said.
Patton said he intends to cooperate with the review, adding that if the review helps spotlight beneficial tasks he’s already doing “that are not easy for people to observe, then it could be a useful process.”
The Review
Meanwhile, MISO’s Markets Committee of the Board of Directors said the review would engage a third party to perform the process and recommend improvements.
MISO Director Barbara Krumsiek told RTO stakeholders the move is “purely a best practice review” to reaffirm a “commitment to openness and transparency.”
Krumsiek said it’s good practice from time to time to evaluate MISO’s major vendors, including the IMM.
“Good governance would suggest from time to time that you do look at your relationship,” Krumsiek said of the MISO-IMM relationship. “I hope that whoever we choose is respectful of the uniqueness of this vendor relationship.”
Patton did not speak during the agenda item discussion preceding the committee’s vote.
“We’re not looking for a third party to tell us what to do … but quantify risks and opportunities for improvements,” MISO Director Theresa Wise added.
Wise said MISO won’t discuss selection of a third-party vendor during the open session of a meeting but revealed that Patton has asked that one, unnamed firm be excluded from a potential list. She said MISO would honor that request.
Director Nancy Lange said she was entering the review process “with an extremely open mind” to see what might need to change or what’s already working.
Multiple members of board said the review process should include stakeholder voices, though they didn’t specify how they would collect their community’s input.
Patton has served as MISO’s external Monitor for more than 20 years.
Later in the meeting, Patton said his monitoring is valuable to MISO. He said over winter 2025/26, for instance, he and his team were able to uncover a software error that caused generators to receive unjustified day-ahead margin assistance payments.
“It’s unlikely that any other Market Monitor would uncover that,” Patton said.
A stakeholder speaking on background said MISO board members moving to investigate Patton after he supported the complaint against the LRTP “smacks of retaliation.”
“The board should recognize how this looks to stakeholders and regulators — MISO attempting to silence objective criticism required by FERC rules and regulations. If this review is warranted, then FERC, not MISO, should conduct the review to ensure an objective, unbiased evaluation. The IMM works for FERC, not MISO,” the source told RTO Insider. The source also questioned MISO’s ability to find a firm that has the “technical and informational wherewithal to evaluate the IMM’s performance.”
The IMM ended 2025 $46,000 over budget, or 0.5% over the budget MISO agreed to. Patton attributed the “small overage” to monitoring suspicious behavior from demand-side resources and concentrating on the root of renewable resources frequently not following MISO’s dispatch orders.
Krumsiek said she would like the IMM to provide budget projections and a “scope of work periodically throughout the year.”


