{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260918-5272","title":"Motion to Intervene and Comments of Central Municipal Power Agency/Services et al. re Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s 08/28/2026 filing","issued":"2026-09-18","accession":"20260918-5272","docket":"ER26-3650-000","group":"MISO filings","filer":"CENTRAL MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCYIndiana Municipal Power AgencyMissouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission ,WPPI Energy ,","kind":"comments","file":"sources/originals/20260918-5272_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20260918-5272","sha256":"a5a9cb434e542dcc5004351608b7c710ff1be59b69d45bf713a8ac42e0bad61c","pages":21,"tokens":5334,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":232,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMidcontinent Independent System \nOperator, Inc. \nDocket No.  ER26-3650-000 \n \nMOTION TO INTERVENE AND COMMENTS OF \nCENTRAL MUNICIPAL POWER \nAGENCY/SERVICES, INDIANA MUNICIPAL \nPOWER AGENCY, MISSOURI JOINT MUNICIPAL \nELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND WPPI \nENERGY \nPursuant to Rules 212 and 214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s \n(the “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 and the Commission’s August 31, \n2026 Combined Notice of Filings #1,2 Central Municipal Power Agency/Services \n(“CMPAS”), Indiana Municipal Power Agency (“IMPA”), Missouri Joint Municipal \nElectric Utility Commission (“MJMEUC”), and WPPI Energy (“WPPI”) (collectively, \n“Midwest TDUs”) each moves to intervene in this proceeding and together comment on \nMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.’s (“MISO”) August 28, 2026 filing to \nrevise its Open Access Transmission, Energy, and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff \n(“Tariff”) to implement Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads.3  \nMidwest TDUs recognize the reliability challenges posed by the influx of new \nlarge loads seeking to interconnect to the MISO Transmission System4 and appreciate \n \n1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.214. \n2 eLibrary No. 20260831-3080. \n3 MISO, Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads (Aug. 28, 2026), eLibrary \nNo. 20260828-5278 (“MISO Filing”). \n4 Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms in these comments refer to the terms as defined in the MISO \nTariff, including terms that would be defined under the Tariff revisions MISO has filed in this proceeding."},{"page":2,"startToken":232,"endToken":658,"text":"- 2 - \nMISO taking swift action to address these challenges. At the same time, addressing these \ncomplex challenges must be done in a way consistent with the Show Cause Order the \nCommission issued to MISO5 and that avoids unintended adverse consequences. \nMidwest TDUs therefore seek clarification on two issues:  \n• That MISO’s proposed Interconnection Reliability Requirements for \nLarge Loads apply to those Large Loads interconnected to the MISO \nTransmission System (and not to loads interconnected at to the distribution \nsystem). This scope of applicability is consistent with MISO’s explanation \nof its filing and the Commission’s Show Cause Order, but Midwest TDUs \nseek clarification to avoid any potential confusion on this key point.  \n• That implementation of these requirements will not unduly burden \nTransmission Customers. Midwest TDUs appreciate that MISO proposes \nto allow Transmission Customers to demonstrate their ability to comply \nwith these requirements through agreements with a Large Load—as \nultimately Large Loads create the reliability risks at issue, and those risks \ncan only be avoided with the cooperation of Large Loads. But additional \nclarity is needed to ensure that Transmission Customers can rely on these \nagreements to avoid undue burdens. In addition, MISO should confirm \nthat it will play a central role in communication and educating Large \nLoads about these requirements, because otherwise important details \nneeded to ensure reliability may get lost in translation, frustrating the \nintended reliability purpose.  \nTo the extent that MISO does not clarify these issues on its own, the Commission \nshould direct it to do so in a deficiency letter. And if MISO’s proposed Tariff language \ndoes not clearly reflect these clarifications, the Commission should order MISO to make \nfurther revisions to the Tariff language to do so.6  \n \n5 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2026) (“MISO Show Cause Order”).  \n6 Because addressing these discrete issues would not result in an “entirely different rate design” (or even \nchange the substance of the requirements posed by MISO) the Commission has authority to require MISO \nto address them without rejecting the filing. Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 178 FERC ¶ 61,182, P 30 \nnn.43-44 (2022) (quoting NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. FERC, 862 F.3d 108, 115 (D.C. Cir. 2017)); see also \nEl Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. FERC, 966 F.3d 842, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (explaining that under an analogous \nprovision of the Natural Gas Act “[i]f the rate imposed by FERC ‘differs significantly’ from the rate \nproposed by the pipeline, it can no longer be attributed to the pipeline or qualify for Section 4 treatment,”"},{"page":3,"startToken":658,"endToken":940,"text":"- 3 - \nI. \nMOTION TO INTERVENE \nEach Midwest TDU (described in Attachment A hereto) moves to intervene with \nfull rights as parties to this proceeding. As market participants, load-serving entities, and \ncustomers under MISO’s Tariff, Midwest TDUs will be directly affected by MISO’s \nproposed Tariff revisions. They each have clear and substantial interests in this \nproceeding that cannot be represented by any other party, and their participation would be \nin the public interest. Midwest TDUs should therefore each be granted intervention. \nCommunications regarding this proceeding should be directed to the following:7 \nCynthia S. Bogorad \nJeffrey M. Bayne \nSPIEGEL & MCDIARMID LLP \n1818 N Street, NW \n8th Floor \nWashington, DC 20036 \nPhone: (202) 879-4000 (Phone)  \nFax: (202) 393-2866 (Fax) \nEmail: cynthia.bogorad@spiegelmcd.com  \n \njeffrey.bayne@spiegelmcd.com \n \nCMPAS: \nJay Anderson, Chief Executive Officer \nCENTRAL MUNICIPAL POWER \nAGENCY/SERVICES \n7550 Corporate Way \nSuite 100 \nEden Prairie, MN 55344 \nPhone: (888) 970-8267 \nEmail:  jaya@cmpas.org \n \n \n \nbut “[u]nder this Court’s precedents, FERC can alter a proposed rate and remain in a Section 4 proceeding \nas long as its change represents ‘at least partial approval of the change’ for which the pipeline itself \npetitioned” (emphasis added) (first quoting W. Res., Inc. v. FERC, 9 F.3d 1568, 1579 (D.C. Cir. 1993); and \nthen quoting Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y. v. FERC, 642 F.2d 1335, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1980))). \n7 Midwest TDUs request waiver of Rule 203(b)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, \n18 C.F.R. § 385.203(b)(3), so as to permit more than two entries on the official service list in order to \nenable Midwest TDUs to promptly receive all communications in the proceeding."},{"page":4,"startToken":940,"endToken":1174,"text":"- 4 - \nIMPA: \nPeter J. Prettyman \nIndiana Municipal Power Agency \n11610 North College Avenue  \nCarmel, IN  46032  \nPhone: (317) 575-3870 \nFax: (317) 575-3372 \nEmail: pprettyman@impa.com \n \n \nWPPI: \nTom Hanrahan, General Counsel \nWPPI ENERGY \n1425 Corporate Center Drive \nSun Prairie, WI 53590-9109 \nPhone: (608) 834-4556 \nEmail: thanrahan@wppienergy.org \n \nMJMEUC: \nSteve Stodden, President and CEO \nMISSOURI JOINT MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC \nUTILITY COMMISSION  \n2200 Maguire Blvd. \nColumbia, MO 65201 \nPhone: (573) 445-3279 \nFax: (573) 445-0680 \nEmail: sstodden@mpua.org \n \nTerry M. Jarrett, General Counsel \nMISSOURI JOINT MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC \nUTILITY COMMISSION  \n2200 Maguire Blvd. \nColumbia, MO 65201 \nPhone: 573-445-3279 \nFax: (573) 445-0680 \nEmail: tjarrett@mpua.org \n \n \n \nII. \nCOMMENTS \nA. \nMidwest TDUs seek confirmation that the proposed requirements \napply only to those Large Loads directly connected to the MISO \nTransmission System.  \nMISO should confirm that its proposed requirements apply only to those Large \nLoads directly connected to the MISO Transmission System. To the extent MISO’s \nproposed Tariff language does not clearly impose this limit, the Commission should \ndirect MISO to revise its proposed Tariff language to do so. \nMISO’s filing appears to impose the proposed Large Loads Interconnection \nReliability Requirements on only those Large Loads that are interconnected to the MISO \nTransmission System, and there is no indication that MISO intends to extend these \nrequirements to any loads interconnected to distribution facilities. There is no mention of \ndistribution-level interconnection in MISO’s transmittal letter, proposed Tariff revisions, \nor supporting testimony."},{"page":5,"startToken":1174,"endToken":1504,"text":"- 5 - \nIndeed, MISO witness Beibei Li describes the scope of MISO’s filing as \n“propos[ing] reliability requirements and a reliability-based framework applicable to \nTransmission Customers taking Transmission Service on behalf of Large Load \ninterconnected to the MISO Transmission System.”8 And although MISO’s proposed \ndefinition of Large Load does not expressly refer to interconnections to the MISO \nTransmission System,9 other Tariff language in MISO’s filing does explicitly refer to \ninterconnections to the Transmission System. For example, “Large Load Equipment” is \ndefined as “[a]ny of the facilities, devices, or equipment that constitutes a part of a Large \nLoad, or are used to interconnect the Large Load to the Transmission System.”10 And the \nLarge Load Ride-Through Requirement states that it is designed to “ensur[e] that the \nComputational Load remains connected to the Transmission System and continue \noperation during voltage and frequency disturbances within the performance criteria \nestablished by the Transmission Provider in the Business Practices Manual for Large \nLoad.”11 \nIn addition, MISO’s filing is in response to the Commission’s MISO Show Cause \nOrder,12 which specifically focused on large load interconnections to the transmission \n \n8 MISO Filing, Tab C, Prepared Direct Testimony of Beibei Li Senior Manager of Strategic Assessment at \n15 (“Li Test.”) (emphasis added).  \n9 The MISO Tariff defines the “Transmission System” as “[t]he transmission facilities owned or controlled \nby Transmission Owners that have conveyed functional control to the Transmission Provider, and are used \nto provide Transmission Service under Module B of this Tariff…,” and the Tariff specifically states that \nDistribution Facilities are “not part of the Transmission System.” MISO Tariff § 1.T. (Note, the language \nquoted above is only part of the definition of Transmission System, not the complete definition.) \n10 MISO Filing, Tab A, Redlined Tariff § 1.L (“Redlined Tariff”).  \n11 Id. § 37A.6.  \n12 MISO Filing, Transmittal Letter at 1 (“Transmittal”) (“The [Interconnection Reliability Requirements] \nProposal is responsive to several of the concerns raised by the Commission in the Order Instituting"},{"page":6,"startToken":1504,"endToken":1942,"text":"- 6 - \nsystem. For example, the Commission’s suggested “reasonable” definition of a large load \nis one that “interconnects to the transmission system at a voltage level greater than 69 \nkV,”13 and the MISO Show Cause Order repeatedly refers to the interconnection of large \nloads to the transmission system.14 \nConsistent with the MISO Show Cause Order, MISO’s intent appears to be that \nthese requirements are specifically for Large Loads interconnected to the MISO \nTransmission System. MISO’s proposed definition of Large Load, however, lacks the \nexplicit language suggested in the Show Cause Order regarding transmission-level \ninterconnection. MISO defines a Large Load as one “located at a single substation behind \none or more Point(s) of Withdrawal from the Transmission System,”15 with “Point(s) of \nWithdrawal” defined as “[t]he point(s) where a non-transmission facility that is used to \n \nProceeding Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act4 in Docket No. EL26-70-000 . . . .” (footnote \nomitted)).  \n13 MISO Show Cause Order, P 58 (emphasis added). The MISO Show Cause Order similar indicates that it \nwould be “reasonable” to define co-located loads “as a configuration that refers to end-use customer load \nthat is physically connected to the facilities of an existing or planned generating facility on the generator \ninterconnection customer’s side of the point of interconnection to the RTO/ISO’s transmission system.” Id. \nP 89 (emphasis added).   \n14 See, e.g., id. P 1 (explaining that “stakeholders have expressed concerns that large loads are not \nefficiently and appropriately integrated onto the transmission system”); id. P 12 (“There is also broad \nsupport for rules that help to ensure that other transmission customers are not unfairly burdened with \nadditional costs or reliability impacts as large and co-located loads interconnect to the transmission \nsystem.”); P 42 (“At the outset, we clarify the principles relating to the Commission’s jurisdiction over the \nmatters relevant to the integration of large loads onto the transmission system and the impacts of large \nloads on the transmission system.”); P 45 (“As applied to large load additions to the transmission system, \nthese principles mean that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the rates, terms, and  conditions \nof interstate transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads connecting to the \ntransmission system, and the practices directly affecting the provision of such interstate transmission of \nelectricity.”); P 123 (“We also understand that large loads and Eligible Customers taking transmission \nservice on behalf of large loads are negotiating, entering into, and/or have executed various agreements \nrelated to interconnecting to the transmission system and/or the provision of transmission service.”). \n15 Redline Tariff § 1.L (proposed definition of Large Load) (emphasis added)."},{"page":7,"startToken":1942,"endToken":2226,"text":"- 7 - \nwithdraw Energy from the Transmission System to serve Load connects to the \nTransmission System.”16  \nWhile MISO’s reference to Point(s) of Withdrawal from the Transmission System \nstrongly suggests loads interconnected at the distribution level are not covered by the \ndefinition of Large Load, the term “behind” could potentially be read broadly to \nencompass anything behind such Point(s) of Withdrawal (such as also behind a \ndistribution transformer)—not just what is directly behind such points and connected at \ntransmission voltages. There is additional potential ambiguity because the term “non-\ntransmission facility” used in the definition of Point(s) of Withdrawal is not defined.17  \nMidwest TDUs believe that MISO’s intent to limit Large Loads to those \nconnected to the MISO Transmission System should be clear for the reasons stated \nabove. But to avoid any potential confusion, MISO should confirm the scope of its \nInterconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads. To the extent that MISO’s \nproposed Tariff language is not clear on this point, the Commission should direct MISO \nto revise the definition of Large Load to include more explicit language on the \nrequirement that Large Loads are those directly interconnected to the MISO \nTransmission System. \nTo the extent that MISO disagrees and argues that its new requirements should \napply to loads interconnected to the distribution system (i.e., behind the transmission-to-\n \n16 Id. § 1.P (proposed definition of Point(s) of Withdrawal).  \n17 Although this term is undefined, Midwest TDUs believe it to be referring to facilities used to \ninterconnect the large load to the MISO Transmission System (consistent with the proposed definition of \nLarge Load Equipment), not a limitless term that could apply to any facility that is not considered \ntransmission."},{"page":8,"startToken":2226,"endToken":2561,"text":"- 8 - \ndistribution substation), the Commission should find that MISO has not justified that \nscope as just and reasonable and require MISO to revise its filing to apply only to Large \nLoads interconnected to the MISO Transmission System. Nothing in MISO’s filing \naddresses distribution-level interconnections, much less satisfies MISO’s burden under \nFederal Power Act (“FPA”) section 20518 to demonstrate the justness and reasonableness \nof encompassing distribution-level interconnections.  \nMoreover, imposing requirements on distribution-level interconnections would go \nfar beyond the careful and deliberate approach taken in the Commission’s Show Cause \nOrder—particularly with respect to jurisdictional issues.19 Similarly, while MISO \nsupports its filing by citing to reliability concerns raised by North American Electric \nReliability Corporation (“NERC”),20 extending MISO’s proposed reliability requirements \nto Large Loads connected at the distribution level would be inconsistent with actions \nNERC itself is taking. In response to the Commission’s recent directive that NERC \npropose reliability standards and propose registry criteria to “address reliability risks to \nthe Bulk-Power System associated with the integration of computational loads,”21 NERC \nis focusing on large computational loads interconnected to the transmission system. For \n \n18 16 U.S.C. § 824d.  \n19 See, e.g., MISO Show Cause Order, P 43 (“As discussed below, however, certain aspects of the process \nfor integrating large loads onto the transmission system fall squarely within the Commission’s exclusive \njurisdiction. Specifically, we find that it is within the Commission’s exclusive authority to ensure that \ntransmission provider and/or transmission owner tariffs include sufficiently clear and consistent provisions \ngoverning how transmission service to Eligible Customers on behalf of large loads interconnecting to the \ntransmission system will be studied . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. P 44 (“As part of its transmission \nauthority, the Commission has exercised jurisdiction over the terms of certain interconnections to the \ntransmission system as an element of transmission service, including the interconnection of wholesale load \nto the transmission system.” (footnote omitted) (emphasis added)).  \n20 Transmittal at 7. \n21 Reliability Standard(s) Pertaining to Computational Load Integration, 196 FERC ¶ 61,031, P 1 (2026)."},{"page":9,"startToken":2561,"endToken":2876,"text":"- 9 - \nexample, NERC’s currently proposed revised draft registry criteria for Computational \nLoad Owner and Operator, as posted on August 19, 2026 for industry comment (due \nSeptember 18, 2026), are limited to such loads of at least 50 MW connected to \ntransmission facilities of at least 100 kV.22 The associated Updated Technical Reasoning, \nalso posted on August 19, describes the technical basis and analyses supporting these \nthresholds.23 \nIn short, both the legal and factual basis of MISO’s filing are targeted toward \nlarge loads interconnected to Commission-jurisdictional transmission facilities. MISO’s \nproposed Tariff language should match that scope.  \nB. \nMISO’s new requirements must be implemented in a way that \ndoes not unduly burden Transmission Customers and advances \ntheir reliability purpose. \nAlthough MISO refers to its newly proposed reliability requirements as “Large \nLoad Reliability Requirements,” MISO proposes to make “[t]he Transmission Customer \ntaking Transmission Service on behalf of a Large Load . . . responsible for complying \n \n22 NERC, Draft Rules of Procedure Appendix 5B, Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria Revision 9 \n§ III(c) Computational Load Owner or Operator (Aug. 19, 2026), https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/who-\nwe-are/rules-of-procedure/proposed/appendix-5b-clean---august-2026-posting.pdf:  \nIII.c.1 Computational Load Owner of a Computational Load Site with a total connected \nLoad greater than or equal to 50 MW that is supplied through electrical equipment \nconnected at a voltage level greater than or equal to 100 kV from one or more points of \nconnection. \nIII.c.2 Computational Load Operator of a Computational Load Site with a total connected \nLoad greater than or equal to 50 MW that is supplied through electrical equipment \nconnected at a voltage level greater than or equal to 100 kV from one or more points of \nconnection. \n23 NERC, Technical Reasoning Update, Proposed Computational Load Owner and Computational Load \nOperator at 3-4 (Aug. 19, 2026), https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/who-we-are/rules-of-\nprocedure/proposed/august-posting-technical-reasoning.pdf."},{"page":10,"startToken":2876,"endToken":3124,"text":"- 10 - \nwith each of the requirements.”24 In other words, the Transmission Customer—not the \nLarge Load—would be responsible for the proposed visibility requirements, phasor \nmeasurement unit requirements, ramp requirements, and ride-through requirements. \nThese requirements would impose significant burdens on Transmission Customers, \nparticularly smaller municipal utilities, if they are forced to be the middlemen between \nMISO and the Large Loads that are best positioned to implement the proposed \nrequirements to achieve their reliability purposes.  \nFor example, while direct implementation of the proposed Large Load \nrequirements may pose challenges for all load-serving entities, requiring small utilities \nthat serve Large Loads to add the necessary technology and infrastructure needed to \ndirectly meet MISO’s proposed Large Load requirements (including the additional \nrequirements applicable to Computational Loads) would impose a disproportionate \nfinancial and administrative burden. Smaller utilities are unable to spread the significant \ncosts and personnel needed to perform these specialized tasks in a rapidly evolving \nterrain. Thus, requiring small Transmission Customers to directly perform the primary \nrole in complying with the proposed Large Load reliability requirements would impose a \nparticularly heavy and undue burden on municipal and consumer-owned electric systems \nand their often rural customers.  \nMidwest TDUs are particularly concerned with excessive burdens on \nTransmission Customers given that, as MISO’s filing itself makes clear, the reliability \n \n24 Redline Tariff § 37A(I) (emphasis added). See Li Test. at 17 (explaining the definition of the term \n“Transmission Customer,” which “include[s] customers receiving Transmission Service under Module B of \n[the MISO] Tariff”)."},{"page":11,"startToken":3124,"endToken":3369,"text":"- 11 - \nrisks at issue are those posed by Large Loads themselves—not the Transmission \nCustomer. MISO explains that “the increasing size, concentration, and changing \ncharacteristics of Large Loads create a need for greater consistency in the information, \nvisibility, and performance expectation necessary to reliably plan and operate the \nTransmission System.”25 MISO also emphasizes “the increased operational risk \nComputational Loads place on the Transmission System.”26 In explaining why MISO \nproposes to make the Transmission Customer responsible for compliance with these \nrequirements, MISO does not claim that Transmission Customers are causing reliability \nrisks; rather, it states that the “ultimate owner of a Large Load may not participate \ndirectly in MISO’s markets or otherwise have contractual privity to MISO.”27 \nMidwest TDUs do not oppose, per se, requiring Transmission Customers to be \nresponsible for compliance with these new requirements based on privity concerns. But \nto be just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, compliance \nresponsibility for the new requirements must be implemented in a manner that does not \nimpose undue burdens on Transmission Customers, especially small utilities, for actions \ntaken by the Large Loads they serve, and that facilitates achievement of MISO’s stated \nobjective of ensuring grid reliability.   \nMISO’s filing includes some language to reasonably limit the burden on \nTransmission Customers, but additional clarity is needed. Significantly, MISO’s \nproposed Tariff revisions expressly permit a Transmission Customer to demonstrate its \n \n25 Li Test. at 7 (emphasis added). \n26 Id. at 17.  \n27 Id. at 18."},{"page":12,"startToken":3369,"endToken":3656,"text":"- 12 - \nability to effectuate compliance with these requirements with “applicable agreement(s), if \nany, between the Transmission Customer and the entity or entities that own, operate or \nuse the Large Load.”28 This language appropriately recognizes that compliance with \nthese requirements ultimately depends on actions taken by the Large Load itself.  \nMidwest TDUs support this provision allowing Transmission Customers to \ndemonstrate compliance through agreements with the Large Loads. Because Large Loads \nare best positioned to ensure compliance with these new requirements, it is critical that \nTransmission Customers can enter into agreements that assign Large Loads the primary \nrole for actually complying with the new requirements. But to ensure that Transmission \nCustomers can rely on such agreements with Large Loads to ensure compliance without \nundue burdens, MISO should confirm or clarify the following issues. To the extent MISO \ndoes do so on its own, the Commission should issue a deficiency letter asking MISO to \naddress these issues and require revisions to the Tariff language consistent with the points \nbelow. \nFirst, MISO should confirm that it will accept agreements that assign Large \nLoads the duty to comply with one or more of these new requirements as a sufficient \ndemonstration of a Transmission Customers’ ability to effectuate compliance. Such \nconfirmation will clarify the intent behind the language in proposed section 37A(I) \nquoted above and the types of agreements that will be acceptable for this purpose.29 \n \n28 Redline Tariff § 37A(I). \n29 It may be beneficial for MISO to develop a standardized means for Transmission Customers to indicate \nthat they have assigned compliance roles to a Large Load, so that this provision can be efficiently and \nconsistently implemented. Midwest TDUs encourage MISO to work with stakeholders to do so."},{"page":13,"startToken":3656,"endToken":3909,"text":"- 13 - \nSecond, MISO should clarify the full scope of potential consequences for non-\ncompliance with these new requirements, particularly for Transmission Customers that \nhave entered into agreements with Large Loads to effectuate compliance. Proposed \nsection 37A(I) states that “[f]ailure to comply with the requirements established in this \nSection 37A may result in a delayed Service Commencement Date, a period of time \nneeded for corrective action, operational limitations, or other remediation action(s) by \nTransmission Provider as may be necessary to maintain Transmission System \nreliability.”30 It is appropriate for the consequences for non-compliance to be tailored to \naddress and prevent the reliability risks posed by Large Loads. Indeed, that should be the \nguiding principle for implementing these requirements. In contrast, it would be \ninappropriate to impose additional consequences or other unduly punitive penalties (such \nas financial penalties) on the Transmission Customer if these requirements are not met by \nthe Large Load assigned responsibility for complying with these requirements under an \nagreement.  \nAccordingly, MISO should clarify that the scope of “other remedial action(s)” is \nlimited to actions that address the reliability impacts caused by Large Loads assigned \ncompliance responsibility under their agreement with the Transmission Customer (rather \nthan punitive measures against the Transmission Customer). Thus, the remedial actions \nshould be targeted to measures that impact the Large Load that is in the best position to \neffectuate compliance. In addition, MISO should confirm that this language establishes \nthe exclusive list of consequences for a Transmission Customer’s failure to comply with \n \n30 Id."},{"page":14,"startToken":3909,"endToken":4169,"text":"- 14 - \nthe Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads where the Transmission \nCustomer has by contract assigned the primary compliance role to the Large Load best \npositioned to perform that role. Doing so will ensure that the focus in the event of non-\ncompliance is on ensuring reliability, not penalizing Transmission Customers for actions \nbeyond their reasonable control.  \nThird, where a Transmission Customer demonstrates its ability to effectuate \ncompliance with these requirements through an agreement with a Large Load, MISO \nshould cooperate to ensure that compliance can be accomplished in an efficient manner \nconsistent with such an agreement. For example, where appropriate and consistent with \nthe terms of the agreement between the Large Load and Transmission Customer, MISO \nshould accept information provided directly by the Large Load to MISO and the \nTransmission Customer, rather than rigidly requiring all information to pass through the \nTransmission Customer (or its equipment) as a middleman.  \nFourth, MISO should also provide educational and ongoing support to Large \nLoads themselves to ensure that they fully understand these new requirements. Although \nMISO’s proposed Tariff language makes the Transmission Customer responsible for \ncompliance with these requirements, MISO cannot ignore that it is the actions taken by \nthe Large Loads themselves that are the source of the reliability risks that need to be \naddressed. MISO has developed these new requirements to protect the MISO \nTransmission System against the impact of new Large Load interconnections, and MISO \nshould play a central role in making sure that Large Loads fully comprehend these \nrequirements and are well positioned to act consistently with them."},{"page":15,"startToken":4169,"endToken":4381,"text":"- 15 - \nIt would not be just and reasonable for MISO to avoid any direct interactions with \nthese Large Loads and instead solely rely on Transmission Customers to communicate \nthese requirements to the Large Load to which responsibility is assigned by agreement. \nMISO, which developed these requirements for the stated purpose of protecting the \nTransmission System from reliability risks posed by Large Loads, should not by limit \ncommunications about these requirements to a game of telephone where all information \nmust be conveyed through the Transmission Customer.31 Doing so could risk critical \ndetails getting lost in translation, undermining the reliability protection these \nrequirements are meant to provide. The support MISO provides Transmission Customers \nand other stakeholders—such as service representatives, the MISO Help Center, and \nCustomer and System Operator Training—should also be made directly available to \nLarge Loads to facilitate compliance with these requirements, as Large Loads are best \npositioned to address reliability risks upon receipt of MISO’s guidance. \n \n31 A standardized means for Transmission Customers to indicate that they have assigned compliance roles \nto a Large Load, as noted above in footnote 29, would also allow MISO to more easily and accurately \nidentify the particular Large Loads that have agreed to play a primary role in ensuring compliance with \nthese requirements."},{"page":16,"startToken":4381,"endToken":4468,"text":"- 16 - \nCONCLUSION \nFor the reasons discussed above, the Commission should (1) grant CMPAS, \nIMPA, MJMEUC, and WPPI intervention in this proceeding; and (2) ensure that the \nissues above are adequately clarified by MISO and order further Tariff revisions to the \nextent that MISO’s proposed language is not clear on these issues.  \n \nRespectfully submitted, \n/s/ Cynthia S. Bogorad  \nCynthia S. Bogorad \nJeffrey M. Bayne \nAttorneys for Midwest TDUs \nLaw Offices of: \nSpiegel & McDiarmid LLP \n1818 N Street, NW \n8th Floor \nWashington, DC 20036 \n(202) 879-4000 \nSeptember 18, 2026"},{"page":17,"startToken":4468,"endToken":4470,"text":"ATTACHMENT A"},{"page":18,"startToken":4470,"endToken":4721,"text":"A-1 \nATTACHMENT A: DESCRIPTION OF MIDWEST TDUS \nCentral Minnesota Municipal Power Agency d/b/a Central Municipal Power \nAgency/Services (“CMPAS”) is a public power joint action agency organized under \nMinnesota law. CMPAS operates as a project-oriented agency. CMPAS and certain of its \nmembers own and operate transmission assets which have been turned over to the \nfunctional control of MISO. \nThe Indiana Municipal Power Agency (“IMPA”) is a body corporate and \npolitic, and a political subdivision of the State of Indiana.  IMPA was created in 1980, \nunder the provisions of Indiana Code § 8-1-2.2, by a group of municipalities for the \npurpose of jointly financing, developing, owning, and operating electric generation and \ntransmission facilities which are appropriate to the current and projected electric power \nneeds of such municipalities.  IMPA became an operating utility in 1983, when it began \nto sell electric power to its member utilities under power sales contracts.  IMPA’s \nmembers currently comprise 60 Indiana cities and towns and one Ohio Village. \nIMPA is a member of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO).  \nIMPA has ownership interests in generation resources within MISO, including co-\nownership with Duke Energy Indiana and Wabash Valley Power Alliance in the Gibson \nStation Unit 5, ownership interest in the Prairie State Energy Campus, ownership interest \nin Trimble County Units 1 and 2, and ownership of natural gas combustion turbine \npeaking units.  IMPA, Duke Energy Indiana, and the Wabash Valley Power Alliance \nhave entered into a joint ownership agreement of the Joint Transmission System (JTS) in"},{"page":19,"startToken":4721,"endToken":5001,"text":"Attachment A \nA-2 \n \nIndiana.  Access to the JTS transmission facilities is administered by MISO pursuant to \nits tariff. \nThe Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (“MJMEUC”) is a \njoint action agency and a body corporate and politic of the State of Missouri authorized \nby legislation to construct, operate and maintain jointly owned transmission and \ngeneration facilities for the production and transmission of electric power for its \nmembers, to purchase and sell electric power and energy, and to enter into agreements \nwith any person for transmission of electric power.  It is organized on a statewide basis to \npromote efficient wheeling, pooling, generation, and transmission arrangements to meet \nthe power and energy requirements of municipal utilities in the state.  MEC membership \nis comprised of 72 municipal utility members and 4 advisory members.  Together, \nMEC’s members serve some 347,000 retail customers, with a combined peak load of \napproximately 2,600 MW. \nSince January 1, 2000, pursuant to its authority under state law, MEC has been \nadministering a power pool formed by some of MEC’s members.  The Missouri Public \nEnergy Pool #1 (“MoPEP”) currently has 35 members, whose 2024 summer peak load \nwas approximately 528 MW.  MoPEP is the full-requirements supplier for its members, \nand meets their capacity and energy requirements through generating and purchased-\npower resources contributed by the pool members, and through additional resources \narranged for by MoPEP.  MoPEP has pool loads and/or resources located within the \ntransmission systems of several members of MISO and SPP.  In addition, as of June 1, \n2020, MEC administers, pursuant to its state law authority, a full-requirements power \npool formed by two of MEC’s members (with a third taking supply starting in June 2025)"},{"page":20,"startToken":5001,"endToken":5268,"text":"Attachment A \nA-3 \n \nwith a 2024 summer peak load of 58 MW, titled the Southwest Missouri Public Energy \nPool (“SWMPEP”). This pool was formed to collectively purchase power at wholesale \ncosts to serve its members’ load. MEC has load in multi-owner transmission pricing \nzones in SPP. \nWPPI Energy (“WPPI”) is a municipal electric company formed pursuant to \nWis. Stat. § 66.0825.  WPPI provides bulk power and other services to its 51 members \n(50 municipalities and one cooperative), each of which operates a distribution utility and \nsells electricity at retail to the residences, businesses, and industries in and around its \nmunicipality.  These members are located within the Wisconsin, Michigan, and/or Iowa \nservice territories of four large investor-owned utilities: Northern States Power-\nWisconsin (Xcel Energy (“Xcel”)), WEC Energy Group (Wisconsin Electric Power \nCompany (“WEPCO”) and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. (“WPS”)), Upper Peninsula \nPower Co., and Alliant Energy (Wisconsin Power & Light Co. (“WP&L”) and Interstate \nPower and Light Co.).  The bulk of WPPI’s load is on the American Transmission \nCompany LLC (“ATCLLC”), Xcel, or ITC Midwest transmission systems, although \nsome of WPPI’s resources are located in other transmission zones in MISO, as well as in \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C.  WPPI supplies the bulk power and energy requirements of \nits members from generation resources owned by WPPI and through purchased power \ncontracts. \nWPPI is a longstanding member of MISO, with both generation and load within \nthe MISO footprint, and owns portions of transmission projects. WPPI also is a \nparticipating owner of ATCLLC, a MISO Transmission Owner which was formed \npursuant to 1999 Wisconsin Act 9 with WPPI’s support."},{"page":21,"startToken":5268,"endToken":5334,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing document to be served \nupon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this \nproceeding. \nDated on this 18th day of September, 2026. \n/s/ Jeffrey M. Bayne  \nJeffrey M. Bayne \nLaw Offices of: \n \nSpiegel & McDiarmid LLP \n1818 N Street, NW \n8th Floor \nWashington, DC 20036 \n(202) 879-4000"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":3,"endAt":7,"startToken":0,"endToken":659},{"p":3,"at":7,"title":"I. Motion to Intervene","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":4,"endAt":773,"startToken":659,"endToken":1042},{"p":4,"at":773,"title":"II. Comments","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":4,"endAt":788,"startToken":1042,"endToken":1044},{"p":4,"at":788,"title":"A. Midwest TDUs seek confirmation that the proposed requirements apply only to those Large Loads directly connected to the MISO Transmission System.","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":9,"endAt":668,"startToken":1044,"endToken":2658},{"p":9,"at":668,"title":"B. MISO’s new requirements must be implemented in a way that does not unduly burden Transmission Customers and advances their reliability purpose.","method":"PDF bookmark","endPage":16,"endAt":8,"startToken":2658,"endToken":4382},{"p":16,"at":8,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":17,"endAt":0,"startToken":4382,"endToken":4468},{"p":17,"at":0,"title":"ATTACHMENT A","method":"printed heading","endPage":18,"endAt":5,"startToken":4468,"endToken":4471},{"p":18,"at":5,"title":"ATTACHMENT A: DESCRIPTION OF MIDWEST TDUS","method":"printed heading","endPage":19,"endAt":0,"startToken":4471,"endToken":4721},{"p":19,"at":0,"title":"Attachment A","method":"printed heading","endPage":20,"endAt":0,"startToken":4721,"endToken":5001},{"p":20,"at":0,"title":"Attachment A","method":"printed heading","endPage":21,"endAt":0,"startToken":5001,"endToken":5268},{"p":21,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":21,"endAt":406,"startToken":5268,"endToken":5334}]}