ER26-3552-000 · 2026-09-08 · Consumers Energy Company

Motion to Intervene and Comments of Consumers Energy Company re the 08/18/2026 filing by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc

1 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
 
 
 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 
) 
) 
Docket No. ER26-3552 
 
 
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY 
 
Consumers Energy Company (“Consumers Energy”) respectfully moves to intervene and 
submits the following comments concerning the filing made by Midcontinent Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) in the above-captioned proceeding (“MISO Filing”). Consumers Energy 
supports clear, transparent, and non-discriminatory regional processes for addressing the transmission-
system impacts of large loads. Consumers Energy requests, however, that the Commission ensure that 
any order accepting the MISO Filing expressly preserves state authority over retail loads and does not 
permit Commission-jurisdictional processes to supersede, preempt, or otherwise displace state 
regulation of retail electric service. 
I. 
MOTION TO INTERVENE 
Consumers Energy Company moves to intervene as a party to this proceeding under Rules 212 
and 214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice 
and Procedure.1 Consumers Energy is a public utility serving over 1.9 million residential, commercial, 
and industrial electric customers in the Michigan Joint Zone of the MISO footprint. As a result, 
Consumers Energy has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and 
intervention is appropriate under the Commission’s rules. 
 
1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.214 (2026).

2 
II. 
CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS 
All correspondence and communications regarding this filing should be addressed to the 
following, each of whom is designated for service and should be placed on the Commission’s official 
service list for this proceeding: 
Rachael H. Moore 
Principal Attorney 
Consumers Energy Company 
One Energy Plaza 
Jackson, MI 49201 
(517) 788-1147 
rachael.moore@cmsenergy.com 
Nichole Kramer-Kiuchi 
Director of Planning and Policy 
Electric Supply 
Consumers Energy Company 
1945 W Parnall Rd 
Jackson, MI 49201 
(517) 788-2931 
Nichole.KramerKiuchi@cmsenergy.com 
 
III. 
COMMENTS 
Consumers Energy submits these limited comments to support clear, transparent, and non-
discriminatory regional processes for studying and providing Commission-jurisdictional transmission 
service associated with large loads, co-located loads, flexible loads, and related generating facilities. 
Consumers Energy takes no position on whether MISO’s proposal is just and reasonable. Instead, 
Consumers Energy asks that if the Commission approves MISO’s filing it does so in a manner that 
preserves the jurisdictional line established by the Federal Power Act (FPA) and avoids tariff language 
that could be read to regulate the terms on which a state-jurisdictional utility connects, serves, or 
allocates retail costs to an end-use customer. The MISO Filing contemplates that “ZGIAs do not 
supersede state jurisdiction”; however, a clear and direct Order from FERC will provide much needed 
regulatory certainty.  
The distinction between Commission-jurisdictional service and state retail jurisdiction matters 
here because MISO’s proposal may use regional processes, standardized agreements, operational 
requirements, or cost-recovery mechanisms that touch facts also relevant to state retail proceedings. 
Without an express jurisdictional reservation, parties may later argue that Commission approval 
establishes federal requirements for retail service, limits a state commission’s ability to impose 
different customer protections, or authorizes MISO to determine matters reserved to state law.

3 
Consumers Energy therefore requests that if the Commission approves MISO’s proposal it 
include in any order accepting the proposal: (1) limit the tariff to Commission-jurisdictional services 
and practices; (2) preserve state authority over retail loads and retail cost recovery; (3) prevent regional 
processes from becoming a prerequisite to state authorization of retail service except to the extent 
necessary to provide jurisdictional transmission service; and (4) require coordination and information 
transparency sufficient for state regulators to perform their own statutory duties. 
In Docket No. EL26-70-000, the Commission instituted an FPA section 206 proceeding 
concerning MISO’s tariff and large-load integration. The Order framed the federal role around 
interstate transmission service to Eligible Customers, the study of effects on the jurisdictional 
transmission system, generator interconnection, and wholesale cost responsibility. At the same time, 
the Commission repeatedly recognized that state authority remains central where the end-use customer 
receives retail service. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) 
(Show Cause Order). 
Most directly, the Commission explained that states determine how wholesale electricity costs, 
including transmission costs, are recovered from retail customers through retail rates. It further stated 
that the purpose of greater transmission-cost transparency is to provide state regulators information 
they can use to protect residential and small commercial customers and to assign costs among retail 
classes as they deem appropriate. Show Cause Order pp. 68-70. 
The Commission also emphasized that a federal cost-recovery mechanism is not intended to 
preempt or interfere with state ratepayer-protection measures, including state-jurisdictional large-load 
tariffs. Id. P 79 & n.189. For co-location arrangements, the Commission reiterated that states retain 
exclusive authority over the specific terms of retail sales and retail rate design, retail cost allocation to 
co-located load, which entities may lawfully provide electricity to retail customers, and which 
generating facilities may be sited and allowed to serve co-located load. Id. pp. 92-93. The order likewise 
recognized exclusive state authority over resource planning and the generation mix. Id. p. 110.

4 
These statements should serve as substantive guardrails in reviewing the proposal, not merely 
background observations. The Commission should carry them forward in the ordering paragraphs of 
any approval order so that the scope of the accepted tariff is clear to MISO, transmission owners, load-
serving entities, large-load customers, state commissions, and reviewing courts. An express finding 
would provide needed certainty without impacting the Proposed ZGIA Framework. MISO may respond 
that the requested clarification is unnecessary because the proposed Tariff already states that ZG 
Interconnection Service does not provide a right to serve retail load except as allowed by state law. 
That existing language supports—not defeats—the requested finding. Incorporating the same principle 
in the acceptance order would confirm the limited basis upon which the filing is accepted and prevent 
isolated operational provisions from being read more broadly than the Tariff’s express jurisdictional 
limitation. 
Further, an express statement on jurisdiction is also consistent with MISO’s decision to confine 
the ZGIA to generation and load at the same substation and voltage level after stakeholders raised 
concerns that a broader electrically proximate construct could create retail-wheeling issues and conflict 
with retail regulatory arrangements. An express non-preemption finding would preserve that narrow 
design while allowing the Commission to approve the interconnection framework on its merits, should 
it see fit.

5 
IV.
CONCLUSION
Consumers Energy supports regional reforms that improve reliability, transparency, timeliness,
and appropriate cost responsibility for large-load additions. Those objectives are compatible with 
preserving state authority over the retail utility-customer relationship. Consumers Energy respectfully 
requests that the Commission condition any approval on clear jurisdictional limitations and expressly 
state that the approved proposal does not supersede, preempt, or displace state jurisdiction over retail 
loads. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Dated: September 8, 2026 
Rachael H. Moore 
Principal Attorney 
Consumers Energy Company 
One Energy Plaza 
Jackson, MI  49201 
Phone: (517) 788-1147 
Email: rachael.moore@cmsenergy.com 
/s/ Rachael H. Moore

6 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
BEFORE THE 
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. 
) 
) 
Docket No. ER26-3552
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that I have this day served the above Motion to Intervene and Comments of 
Consumers Energy Company upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the 
Secretary in this proceeding. 
Dated at Jackson, Michigan, this 8th day of September, 2026. 
Rachael H. Moore 
Principal Attorney 
Consumers Energy Company 
One Energy Plaza 
Jackson, MI  49201 
Phone: (517) 788-1147 
Email: rachael.moore@cmsenergy.com 
/s/ Rachael H. Moore