{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260908-5329","title":"Motion to Intervene and Comments of Consumers Energy Company re the 08/18/2026 filing by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc","issued":"2026-09-08","accession":"20260908-5329","docket":"ER26-3552-000","group":"MISO filings","filer":"Consumers Energy Company","kind":"comments","file":"sources/originals/20260908-5329_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260908-5329","sha256":"5c60d55f74dac524650cf091294087c28c8c3c9f2586a9d0ebd9118364f8a37e","pages":6,"tokens":1231,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":214,"text":"1 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \n \n \nMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. \n) \n) \nDocket No. ER26-3552 \n \n \nMOTION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY \n \nConsumers Energy Company (“Consumers Energy”) respectfully moves to intervene and \nsubmits the following comments concerning the filing made by Midcontinent Independent System \nOperator, Inc. (“MISO”) in the above-captioned proceeding (“MISO Filing”). Consumers Energy \nsupports clear, transparent, and non-discriminatory regional processes for addressing the transmission-\nsystem impacts of large loads. Consumers Energy requests, however, that the Commission ensure that \nany order accepting the MISO Filing expressly preserves state authority over retail loads and does not \npermit Commission-jurisdictional processes to supersede, preempt, or otherwise displace state \nregulation of retail electric service. \nI. \nMOTION TO INTERVENE \nConsumers Energy Company moves to intervene as a party to this proceeding under Rules 212 \nand 214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice \nand Procedure.1 Consumers Energy is a public utility serving over 1.9 million residential, commercial, \nand industrial electric customers in the Michigan Joint Zone of the MISO footprint. As a result, \nConsumers Energy has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and \nintervention is appropriate under the Commission’s rules. \n \n1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.214 (2026)."},{"page":2,"startToken":214,"endToken":499,"text":"2 \nII. \nCORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS \nAll correspondence and communications regarding this filing should be addressed to the \nfollowing, each of whom is designated for service and should be placed on the Commission’s official \nservice list for this proceeding: \nRachael H. Moore \nPrincipal Attorney \nConsumers Energy Company \nOne Energy Plaza \nJackson, MI 49201 \n(517) 788-1147 \nrachael.moore@cmsenergy.com \nNichole Kramer-Kiuchi \nDirector of Planning and Policy \nElectric Supply \nConsumers Energy Company \n1945 W Parnall Rd \nJackson, MI 49201 \n(517) 788-2931 \nNichole.KramerKiuchi@cmsenergy.com \n \nIII. \nCOMMENTS \nConsumers Energy submits these limited comments to support clear, transparent, and non-\ndiscriminatory regional processes for studying and providing Commission-jurisdictional transmission \nservice associated with large loads, co-located loads, flexible loads, and related generating facilities. \nConsumers Energy takes no position on whether MISO’s proposal is just and reasonable. Instead, \nConsumers Energy asks that if the Commission approves MISO’s filing it does so in a manner that \npreserves the jurisdictional line established by the Federal Power Act (FPA) and avoids tariff language \nthat could be read to regulate the terms on which a state-jurisdictional utility connects, serves, or \nallocates retail costs to an end-use customer. The MISO Filing contemplates that “ZGIAs do not \nsupersede state jurisdiction”; however, a clear and direct Order from FERC will provide much needed \nregulatory certainty.  \nThe distinction between Commission-jurisdictional service and state retail jurisdiction matters \nhere because MISO’s proposal may use regional processes, standardized agreements, operational \nrequirements, or cost-recovery mechanisms that touch facts also relevant to state retail proceedings. \nWithout an express jurisdictional reservation, parties may later argue that Commission approval \nestablishes federal requirements for retail service, limits a state commission’s ability to impose \ndifferent customer protections, or authorizes MISO to determine matters reserved to state law."},{"page":3,"startToken":499,"endToken":823,"text":"3 \nConsumers Energy therefore requests that if the Commission approves MISO’s proposal it \ninclude in any order accepting the proposal: (1) limit the tariff to Commission-jurisdictional services \nand practices; (2) preserve state authority over retail loads and retail cost recovery; (3) prevent regional \nprocesses from becoming a prerequisite to state authorization of retail service except to the extent \nnecessary to provide jurisdictional transmission service; and (4) require coordination and information \ntransparency sufficient for state regulators to perform their own statutory duties. \nIn Docket No. EL26-70-000, the Commission instituted an FPA section 206 proceeding \nconcerning MISO’s tariff and large-load integration. The Order framed the federal role around \ninterstate transmission service to Eligible Customers, the study of effects on the jurisdictional \ntransmission system, generator interconnection, and wholesale cost responsibility. At the same time, \nthe Commission repeatedly recognized that state authority remains central where the end-use customer \nreceives retail service. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) \n(Show Cause Order). \nMost directly, the Commission explained that states determine how wholesale electricity costs, \nincluding transmission costs, are recovered from retail customers through retail rates. It further stated \nthat the purpose of greater transmission-cost transparency is to provide state regulators information \nthey can use to protect residential and small commercial customers and to assign costs among retail \nclasses as they deem appropriate. Show Cause Order pp. 68-70. \nThe Commission also emphasized that a federal cost-recovery mechanism is not intended to \npreempt or interfere with state ratepayer-protection measures, including state-jurisdictional large-load \ntariffs. Id. P 79 & n.189. For co-location arrangements, the Commission reiterated that states retain \nexclusive authority over the specific terms of retail sales and retail rate design, retail cost allocation to \nco-located load, which entities may lawfully provide electricity to retail customers, and which \ngenerating facilities may be sited and allowed to serve co-located load. Id. pp. 92-93. The order likewise \nrecognized exclusive state authority over resource planning and the generation mix. Id. p. 110."},{"page":4,"startToken":823,"endToken":1040,"text":"4 \nThese statements should serve as substantive guardrails in reviewing the proposal, not merely \nbackground observations. The Commission should carry them forward in the ordering paragraphs of \nany approval order so that the scope of the accepted tariff is clear to MISO, transmission owners, load-\nserving entities, large-load customers, state commissions, and reviewing courts. An express finding \nwould provide needed certainty without impacting the Proposed ZGIA Framework. MISO may respond \nthat the requested clarification is unnecessary because the proposed Tariff already states that ZG \nInterconnection Service does not provide a right to serve retail load except as allowed by state law. \nThat existing language supports—not defeats—the requested finding. Incorporating the same principle \nin the acceptance order would confirm the limited basis upon which the filing is accepted and prevent \nisolated operational provisions from being read more broadly than the Tariff’s express jurisdictional \nlimitation. \nFurther, an express statement on jurisdiction is also consistent with MISO’s decision to confine \nthe ZGIA to generation and load at the same substation and voltage level after stakeholders raised \nconcerns that a broader electrically proximate construct could create retail-wheeling issues and conflict \nwith retail regulatory arrangements. An express non-preemption finding would preserve that narrow \ndesign while allowing the Commission to approve the interconnection framework on its merits, should \nit see fit."},{"page":5,"startToken":1040,"endToken":1137,"text":"5 \nIV.\nCONCLUSION\nConsumers Energy supports regional reforms that improve reliability, transparency, timeliness,\nand appropriate cost responsibility for large-load additions. Those objectives are compatible with \npreserving state authority over the retail utility-customer relationship. Consumers Energy respectfully \nrequests that the Commission condition any approval on clear jurisdictional limitations and expressly \nstate that the approved proposal does not supersede, preempt, or displace state jurisdiction over retail \nloads. \nRespectfully submitted, \nDated: September 8, 2026 \nRachael H. Moore \nPrincipal Attorney \nConsumers Energy Company \nOne Energy Plaza \nJackson, MI  49201 \nPhone: (517) 788-1147 \nEmail: rachael.moore@cmsenergy.com \n/s/ Rachael H. Moore"},{"page":6,"startToken":1137,"endToken":1231,"text":"6 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. \n) \n) \nDocket No. ER26-3552\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have this day served the above Motion to Intervene and Comments of \nConsumers Energy Company upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the \nSecretary in this proceeding. \nDated at Jackson, Michigan, this 8th day of September, 2026. \nRachael H. Moore \nPrincipal Attorney \nConsumers Energy Company \nOne Energy Plaza \nJackson, MI  49201 \nPhone: (517) 788-1147 \nEmail: rachael.moore@cmsenergy.com \n/s/ Rachael H. Moore"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":942,"startToken":0,"endToken":117},{"p":1,"at":942,"title":"I. MOTION TO INTERVENE","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":3,"startToken":117,"endToken":215},{"p":2,"at":3,"title":"II. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS","method":"printed heading","endPage":2,"endAt":604,"startToken":215,"endToken":297},{"p":2,"at":604,"title":"III. COMMENTS","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":3,"startToken":297,"endToken":1041},{"p":5,"at":3,"title":"IV. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":7,"startToken":1041,"endToken":1042},{"p":5,"at":7,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":154,"startToken":1042,"endToken":1156},{"p":6,"at":154,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":643,"startToken":1156,"endToken":1231}]}