{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260814-5198","title":"Comments of the Organization of MISO States, Inc. on the Informational Report of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. filed on 07/20/2026","issued":"2026-08-14","accession":"20260814-5198","docket":"EL26-70-000","group":"MISO filings","filer":"Organization of MISO States, Inc.","kind":"comments","file":"sources/originals/20260814-5198_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260814-5198","sha256":"9b19c86df6751de48fed202901c1e5774c81471fe8e663a3e64d8eff8822754d","pages":7,"tokens":1586,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":294,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  \n BEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \n \n \n \n) \nMidcontinent Independent System \n) \nDocket No. EL26-70-000 \n      Operator, Inc., et al. \n) \n \n) \n \n \nCOMMENTS OF  \nTHE ORGANIZATION OF MISO STATES, INC. ON \nTHE INFORMATIONAL REPORT OF  \nTHE MIDCONTINENT INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC. \n \nThe Organization of MISO States, Inc. (“OMS”)1 submits the following comments in \nresponse to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) July 20, 2026 \nInformational Report2 filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”) in \nthe above-captioned proceeding.3 OMS submits these comments regarding MISO’s Informational \nReport to underscore the role of state and local regulators regarding resource adequacy and the \ninterconnection of large loads – the subject of MISO’s Informational Report. These comments are \nintended to aid the Commission in its decision-making process by offering the perspective of retail \nregulatory authorities responsible for overseeing resource adequacy in the MISO region.  \nI. \nCOMMENTS \nOMS submits this response to ensure that the perspectives of state and local regulators are \nreflected in the Commission’s consideration of resource adequacy. As the entities responsible for \noverseeing retail customers, resource planning, generation procurement cost decisions, and siting, \n \n1 OMS filed a Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time on July 15, 2026. OMS is a non-profit, self-governing organization \ncomprised of representatives from the seventeen regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over entities participating in \nMISO and serves as the regional state committee for the MISO region. OMS coordinates regulatory oversight among \nits members, makes recommendations to MISO, the MISO Board of Directors, the Commission, and other relevant \ngovernment entities, and intervenes in proceedings before the Commission to express the positions of OMS members. \n2  Ltr. to Secretary Reese re: Informational Report, Docket No. EL26-70 (July 20, 2026) (“Informational Report”). \n3  Midcontinent Indep. System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (the “Show Cause Order”)."},{"page":2,"startToken":294,"endToken":556,"text":"state and local regulators play a central role in ensuring reliable, affordable electric service and \nshould remain active participants in discussions regarding resource adequacy. \nOMS remains committed to working constructively with MISO and stakeholders to \nstrengthen the existing framework while preserving state authority over resource adequacy and \nensuring that reforms continue to support reliable service, efficient markets, and reasonable \ncustomer costs. At the same time, unprecedented large load growth presents new planning, \ncoordination, and implementation challenges that warrant continued collaboration among MISO, \nstates, market participants, and other stakeholders.  \nA central purpose of OMS’s comments here is to highlight that many important resource \nadequacy and affordability policy and implementation issues are being addressed through state \nproceedings and utility-specific processes that are not fully reflected in MISO's informational \nreport as those actions are not FERC-jurisdictional, and MISO is not a party to those actions or \nproceedings. \nA. \nMISO and the States’ Existing Resource Adequacy Construct Provides a \nStrong Foundation to Integrate New Loads. \n \nMISO and the states’ resource adequacy framework provides a durable foundation for \nmaintaining reliability while appropriately recognizing the complementary roles of states and the \nregional market. States remain primarily responsible for determining resource adequacy needs \nthrough utility oversight, resource planning, and retail regulatory processes, while MISO provides \nthe regional planning, market rules, and capacity auction framework necessary to support those \nstate decisions.  \nThe recent emergence of unprecedented large load growth presents new planning, \noperational, and coordination challenges, but these challenges do not indicate a failure of the states \nand their collaboration with MISO’s underlying resource adequacy framework nor does it shift"},{"page":3,"startToken":556,"endToken":808,"text":"who is responsible for establishing needs or determining how those needs are met. Rather, the \nunique characteristics and uncertainty associated with very large loads warrant enhanced \ncoordination between MISO, load-serving entities, transmission owners, and state regulators, with \nplanning processes that evaluate load additions using a level of rigor comparable to that applied to \nnew generation resources.  \nB. \nStates Remain Key in Ensuring Affordability through Resource Adequacy \nConstructs.  \n \nAs MISO, states, and stakeholders continue to evolve the resource adequacy framework to \naddress unprecedented large load growth, OMS believes that future reforms should continue to \nbuild upon the complementary roles established under the Federal Power Act, recognizing the \ncentral role states play in ensuring resource adequacy by protecting customers from unnecessary \ncosts while ensuring reliable electric service.4 \nStates are responsible for protecting customer affordability – States are uniquely \npositioned to evaluate how wholesale market outcomes translate into retail customer bills and to \nensure that new investments are appropriately assigned to those who cause them. Across the MISO \nfootprint, state commissions are implementing retail tariffs, approving special contracts, requiring \nresource adequacy demonstrations, establishing interruptible service requirements, and adopting \n \n4  See OMS Pre-Filed Technical Conference Statement of Commissioner Marcus Hawkins, Docket No. AD25-7 (filed \nMay 28, 2025) available at: https://www.misostates.org/images/stories/Filings/FERC/2025/AD25-7_-\n_OMS_Hawkins_Pre-Filed_Tech_Conference_Statement.pdf; and Post-Technical Conference Comments of OMS, \nDocket No. AD25-7 (filed July 7, 2025) available at: https://www.misostates.org/images/stories/Filings/FERC/ \n2025/AD25-7_-_OMS_Post-Tech_Conference_Comments.pdf."},{"page":4,"startToken":808,"endToken":1155,"text":"statutory protections that prevent cost shifting from new large loads to existing customers.5,6,7 \nThese retail proceedings are an essential component of maintaining affordability and should be \nconsidered alongside regional reforms. \nStates are responsible for resource adequacy decisions and their associated cost – \nResource adequacy is ultimately defined and achieved through state oversight of utility resource \nplanning, procurement, and customer obligations. MISO’s regional markets and reliability \nassessments provide critical support and signals to those decisions, but continued state engagement \nis necessary to ensure regional policies complement and do not displace the resource adequacy \nresponsibilities entrusted to state regulators as those decisions are key to ensuring affordability. \nStates benefit from efficient regional markets and interconnection processes – OMS \nrecognizes that new tools may be appropriate to accommodate imminent large load additions and \nsupport speed-to-power objectives. However, existing interconnection processes should remain \nthe primary pathway for connecting new resources, with expedited or alternative processes \nnarrowly tailored to address specific circumstances without creating parallel processes that reduce \ntransparency or undermine efficient regional planning. Well-designed regional processes \nultimately benefit customers by promoting efficient investment, creating robust markets, and \nreducing unnecessary costs. \n \n5  See Minn. Stat. § 216B.1622: “As [the state commission] evaluates a tariff or agreement under this section, the  \ncommission must consider how to best achieve the following required outcomes: (1) all costs attributable to the \nutility’s very large customers […] are assigned to the very large customer class; [...] (3) the tariff or agreement \ncontains protections necessary to ensure that other customers of the public utility are not placed at risk for paying \nstranded costs associated with the utility serving the very large customer.” \n6  See Application of DTE Elec. Co. for approval of special contracts, Case No. U-21990, Order of the Michigan Public \nService Commission (Dec. 18, 2025); and Application of Consumers Energy Co. for Ex Parte Approval of Certain \nAmendments to Rate GPD, Case No. U-21859, Order of the Michigan Public Service Commission (Feb. 7, 2025). \n7 Smart Electric Power Alliance, Database of Emerging Large Load Tariffs (DELTa) available at: \nhttps://sepapower.org/large-load-tariffs-database/ (last accessed August 11, 2026)."},{"page":5,"startToken":1155,"endToken":1382,"text":"States need transparency to fulfill their responsibilities – As the Commission has \nrecognized, greater transparency regarding planning assumptions, reliability analyses, \ntransmission cost allocation, and implementation decisions is essential. Since states are \naccountable for balancing reliability, affordability, and customer protection, they require sufficient \nvisibility into wholesale planning and market decisions to evaluate customer impacts and make \ninformed regulatory decisions. Continued collaboration among MISO, states, and stakeholders \nwill strengthen both regional markets and state oversight while preserving the appropriate balance \nof federal and state responsibilities. \nStates will continue to coordinate and work with MISO – Regional collaboration \nremains essential to maintaining reliability across the MISO footprint. Continued partnership \namong MISO, states, and stakeholders, supported by transparent regional and federal processes, \nmeaningful state engagement, and ongoing analytical efforts such as the OMS-MISO Survey and \nother informational and collaborative reports with MISO will ensure the resource adequacy \nframework continues to remain successful while preserving reliability, affordability, and the \nappropriate balance of federal and state responsibilities. \nII. \nCONCLUSION \nOMS submits these Comments because a majority of OMS members support this filing. \nThis should not be construed to mean that all OMS members agree with all comments herein. \nIndividual OMS members reserve the right to file separate comments.  \nIn recognition of such, the following members voted in support of this filing: \nArkansas Public Service Commission  \nIllinois Commerce Commission \nIowa Utilities Commission  \nIndiana Utility Regulatory Commission"},{"page":6,"startToken":1382,"endToken":1505,"text":"Kentucky Public Service Commission  \nLouisiana Public Service Commission  \nMichigan Public Service Commission \nMinnesota Public Utilities Commission  \nMississippi Public Service Commission \nMissouri Public Service Commission  \nNew Orleans City Council \nNorth Dakota Public Service Commission  \nSouth Dakota Public Utilities Commission  \nPublic Service Commission of Wisconsin  \nPublic Utility Commission of Texas  \nThe Manitoba Public Utilities Board and the Montana Public Service Commission did not \nparticipate in the vote on this filing. \n \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n \n \n \n/s/ Brad J. Pope \n \n \n \n    /s/ Tricia DeBleeckere \n \nBrad Pope \n \n \n \n \n   Tricia DeBleeckere \nLegal and Regulatory Director \n \n   Executive Director \nOrganization of MISO States  \n \n   Organization of MISO States \n811 E. Washington Ave., Suite 400 \n \n   811 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 400 \nMadison, WI 53703  \n \n \n   Madison, WI 53703 \nbrad@misostates.org  \n \n \n   tricia@misostates.org \n \nDated: August 14, 2026"},{"page":7,"startToken":1505,"endToken":1586,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \n \n       I certify that I have served the preceding document upon each person designated on the official \nservice list prepared by the Secretary for this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of \nRule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 C.F.R. § 385.2010. \n \n /s/ Brad J. Pope \n \nBrad Pope \nDirector of Legal & Regulatory Affairs \nOrganization of MISO States \n811 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 400 \nMadison, WI 53703 \nbrad@misostates.org \n \nDated: August 14, 2026"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":1072,"startToken":0,"endToken":141},{"p":1,"at":1072,"title":"I. COMMENTS","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":1080,"startToken":141,"endToken":438},{"p":2,"at":1080,"title":"A. MISO and the States’ Existing Resource Adequacy Construct Provides a","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":414,"startToken":438,"endToken":612},{"p":3,"at":414,"title":"B. States Remain Key in Ensuring Affordability through Resource Adequacy","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":1305,"startToken":612,"endToken":1314},{"p":5,"at":1305,"title":"II. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":1310,"startToken":1314,"endToken":1315},{"p":5,"at":1310,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":7,"endAt":0,"startToken":1315,"endToken":1505},{"p":7,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":7,"endAt":519,"startToken":1505,"endToken":1586}]}