{"document":{"slug":"filing-20261002-5120","title":"Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers et al. to the Joint Protest of the Sierra Club et al","issued":"2026-10-02","accession":"20261002-5120","docket":"ER26-3650-000","group":"MISO filings","filer":"Coalition of MISO Transmission CustomersIllinois Industrial Energy ConsumersAssociation of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity ,NIPSCO Large Customer Group ,Louisiana Energy Users Group ,Texas Industrial Energy Consumers ,","kind":"answer","file":"sources/originals/20261002-5120_01.pdf","url":"https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_Number=20261002-5120","sha256":"f9439d379cc07295f47b1e4a6167f5fadd488759b3210d51232dff9a8a1d08da","pages":11,"tokens":2786,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":241,"text":"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \nMidcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. \n \n)  \nDocket No. ER26-3650-000\nMOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER PROTESTS AND ANSWER  \nOF THE LARGE ENERGY USERS \nPursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” \nor “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 the Coalition of MISO Transmission \nCustomers (“CMTC), the Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers (“IIEC”), the Association of \nBusinesses Advocating Tariff Equity (“ABATE”), the NIPSCO Large Customer Group \n(“NLCG”), the Louisiana Energy Users Group (“LEUG”), and the Texas Industrial Energy \nConsumers (“TIEC”) (collectively, “the Large Energy Users”) hereby request leave to submit this \nMotion for Leave to Answer Protests and Answer (“Answer”) to the Joint Protest of the Sierra \nClub, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Clean \nWisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sustainable FERC Project, and Fresh Energy \n(collectively “Public Interest Organizations”, or “PIOs”), and the Joint Protest of the Iowa Office \nof Consumer Advocate (“Iowa OCA”), Office of the Illinois Attorney General (“IL OAG”), \nIllinois Citizens Utility Board (“IL CUB”), Michigan Attorney General, Michigan Citizens Utility \nBoard (“MI CUB”), Minnesota Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), Citizens Utility Board \nof Minnesota (“MN CUB”), Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board (“WI CUB”), Citizens Action \nCoalition of Indiana, Inc., and Alliance for Affordable Energy (collectively the “Consumer Interest \nAdvocates”) (collectively both protesting parties shall be referred to as the “Protesting Public \nInterest Parties”).\n1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.213."},{"page":2,"startToken":241,"endToken":558,"text":"2\nI.\nMOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER \nThe Large Energy Users respectfully request leave to file this Answer.  Rule 213(a)(2) \ngenerally prohibits answers to protests unless such answers have been authorized by the decisional \nauthority.2  However, the Commission exercises its discretion to grant motions for leave to submit \nanswers when doing so will clarify the issues, assist in the Commission’s decision-making \nprocesses, or otherwise ensure an accurate and complete record.3\nThe Large Energy Users are a collection of ad hoc associations of large end-users of \nelectricity, including manufacturers and educational institutions operating on thin margins, that \nconsume substantial amounts of electricity at various facilities throughout the Midcontinent \nIndependent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) footprint.  The Large Energy Users are also some of \nthe largest employers in the MISO footprint that continue to face increased operational costs as a \nresult of longstanding increases in the cost of electric service.  The Large Energy Users will be \nmost directly affected by the FERC’s determinations in this proceeding regarding MISO’s \nInterconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads Proposal (“IRR Proposal”).  The Large \nEnergy Users support reforms that ensure just and reasonable practices that avoid adverse negative \neconomic consequences and unnecessary regulatory burdens to existing large loads, especially \nexisting manufacturing and educational institutional loads that have not triggered the regulatory and \nlegislative efforts responding to concerns associated with high-impact, large computational loads \nwhose electrical characteristics present system risks.  The Large Energy Users worked diligently \nwith other stakeholders to achieve a compromise solution that MISO filed with FERC.  The \n2 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2). \n3 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 145 FERC ¶ 61,035, at P 32 (2013); Wisconsin Pub. Serv. Corp., 144 FERC \n¶ 61,093, at P 27 (2013); Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 137 FERC ¶ 61,185, at P 17 (2011); Virginia Elec. and Power \nCo., 125 FERC ¶ 61,391, at P 26 (2008)."},{"page":3,"startToken":558,"endToken":894,"text":"3\ngrandfathering provisions currently presented in the IRR Proposal strike a balance between \nmanaging reliability issues caused by new Large Loads, while protecting commercial certainty for \nexisting manufacturers and industrial customers.  Because the Protesting Public Interest Parties \nbroadly challenge the grandfathering provisions, the Large Energy Users provide their perspective \non the importance of those grandfathering provisions to the economic well-being of employers \nthroughout the MISO footprint and, therefore, ask the Commission to consider these comments in \nissuing an order in this proceeding.    \nII.\nANSWER \nA.\nMISO’s Grandfathering/Transition Proposal is Just and Reasonable and \nConsistent with the June 18, 2026 Show Cause Order’s Objective to Protect \nExisting Commercial Arrangements. \nThe Commission explicitly stated that the Show Cause Order4 was issued to determine \nprospective reforms related to Large Load interconnections and was not intended to disrupt \nexisting commercial arrangements.  Further, the Commission instructed MISO to ensure that any \nTariff revisions accommodate existing commercial arrangements through a reasonable \nimplementation timeline.  The relevant part of the Show Cause Order states the following: \nWe recognize that large loads, including data centers, are actively \nworking with transmission owners and other relevant entities to \ninterconnect to, and to take service from, the transmission system.  \nWe appreciate that different large loads are currently at different \nstages of that process.  We also understand that large loads and \nEligible Customers taking transmission service on behalf of large \nloads are negotiating, entering into, and/or have executed various \nagreements related to interconnecting to the transmission system \nand/or the provision of transmission service.  This proceeding is not \nintended to disrupt existing commercial arrangements, but rather to \nestablish prospective reforms.  Accordingly, any Tariff revisions \noffered by MISO and/or the Transmission Owners in response to \nthis proceeding should (a) propose a reasonable implementation \nperiod to ensure minimal disruption to such existing commercial \n4 “Order Instituting Proceeding Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act,” Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Op. Inc. et al, \n195 FERC ¶ 61,212, at P 5, Docket No. EL26-70-000 (June 18, 2026) (“Show Cause Order”)."},{"page":4,"startToken":894,"endToken":1204,"text":"4\narrangements, and (b) allow a reasonable amount of time to \nfinalize ongoing agreements that are nearing completion as of the \ndate such Tariff provisions are filed with the Commission.  Such \nproposed Tariff revisions should include a reasonable effective \ndate that accommodates such considerations regarding these \nexisting commercial arrangements.5\nIn alignment with FERC’s directive, MISO’s IRR Proposal includes a grandfathering \nprovision which exempts two categories of Large Loads: 1) Large Loads with a Service \nCommencement Date on or prior to December 4, 2026; and 2) Large Loads associated with \ntransmission projects either approved for MISO’s Transmission Expansion Plan (“MTEP”) 2026 \nor submitted for Expedited Project Review (“EPR”) prior to June 18, 2026.6  The former category \nwill be entirely exempt from reliability requirements, and the latter category will be exempt from \nany applicable ride-through and ramp requirements.7  This grandfathering provision respects \nexisting customers and existing contracts and presents a reasonable timeline for agreements that \nare in process to conclude before the implementation of new reliability requirements.  \nAs emphasized by Google LLC: MISO’s “pragmatic approach” includes a “reasonable \ngrandfathering of existing customers in a manner that respects reliance interests and investments \nmade under the rules in effect at the time.”8  Further, the proposed grandfathering provisions \nprevent adverse economic consequences and unnecessary regulatory burdens to Large Loads, \nespecially existing manufacturing and institutional loads that have not triggered the regulatory and \nlegislative efforts responding to concerns associated with high-impact, large computational loads.  \nFor manufacturers that have been contemplating modest expansions, MISO’s proposal and FERC’s \n5 Show Cause Order at P 5 (emphasis added). \n6 MISO’s Interconnection Reliability Requirements for Large Loads, Docket No. ER26-3650, Accession No. \n20260828-5278 (Aug. 28, 2026) (“IRR Filing”) at Tab A Tariff Redline at 37A(II). \n7 Id.\n8 Comments of Google LLC at 1, Docket No. EL26-3650-000, Accession No. 20260918-5386 at 1 (Sep. 18, 2026)."},{"page":5,"startToken":1204,"endToken":1532,"text":"5\nShow Cause Order sends a critical signal of price and regulatory certainty for any investors \ninterested in trying to help onshoring and industrial revitalization in the United States.  As such, the \ncurrently proposed grandfathering provisions are consistent with the FERC’s unambiguous \ndirective in the Show Cause Order to protect existing load and existing arrangements.   \nB.\nThe Public Interest Organizations and Consumer Interest Advocates Have \nNot Demonstrated that Existing Large Loads are Causing the Reliability \nConcerns Targeted by the Show Cause Order. \nLarge manufacturers and industrial customers have existed within MISO’s footprint for \nyears, operating safely and reliably, and therefore those longstanding existing loads do not present \nthe same reliability concerns associated with the electrical characteristics and high-impact, speed-\nto-power demands of certain large, emerging computational loads.  The North American Electric \nReliability Corporation (“NERC”) has highlighted numerous reliability challenges presented by \nemerging Large Loads, and electrical characteristics of computational loads specifically.9\nThe PIOs accurately discuss the Commission’s cost-causation principle10 and assert that \nLarge Loads must pay for reliability costs they impose on the transmission system.11  However, \nthe PIOs do not provide evidence that the existing Large Loads comprised of long-standing \nindustrial customers and manufacturers are causing the reliability issues facing the electric grid \ntoday.  The Show Cause Order is aimed at recent and exponential growth of Large Loads, not at \nlarge customers who have been reliably participating in MISO for decades.  Further, the Consumer \nInterest Advocates generically assert a reliability threat caused by existing customers but fail to \n9 NERC, Characteristics and Risks of Emerging Large Loads: Large Loads Task Force White Paper (July 2025), \navailable at: https://www.nerc.com/globalassets/who-we-are/standing-committees/rstc/whitepaper-characteristics-\nand-risks-of-emerging-large-loads.pdf (last visited on Sept. 28, 2026). \n10 Protest of Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law And Policy Center, Clean \nWisconsin, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sustainable FERC Project, and Fresh Energy at 6-7, Docket No. ER26-\n3650, Accession No. 20260918-5397 (Sept. 18, 2026). \n11 Id. at 7."},{"page":6,"startToken":1532,"endToken":1903,"text":"6\nsubstantiate it.12  Accordingly, the Protesting Public Interest Parties have not shown that the IRR \nProposal’s grandfathering provision should be rejected on reliability grounds.   \nTo the extent that any new and additional reliability requirements are necessary, such \nrequirements can be further explored at the upcoming FERC Technical Conference in Docket No. \nAD26-8-000 on October 21, 2026 and through NERC’s ongoing risk assessment of emerging Large \nLoads.    \nC.\nConcerns about Cost Shifting Risk among Transmission Customers are More \nAppropriately Addressed in the Future Filing Directed by FERC and Planned \nby MISO. \nThe Large Energy Users appreciate the cost shifting and transparency concerns raised by \nthe PIOs and Consumer Interest Advocates; however, these concerns are more appropriately \naddressed in a future filing specifically focused on cost shifting risk among transmission \ncustomers. MISO has proposed a cost shifting framework in its Large Load Working Group13\n(“LLWG”) and plans to formally address cost shifting in a future FERC filing.  Therefore, the \nPIOs’ stated concern that the grandfathering provisions presented in the IRR Proposal may \n“deprive electric consumers of the cost shifting and other consumer protections that MISO has \nbeen directed to address in the Show Cause Order”14 is appropriately raised in MISO’s \nforthcoming filing on that topic.  The instant proceeding is about new interconnection reliability \n12 See Joint Protest Of The Iowa Office Of The Consumer Advocate, Office Of The Illinois Attorney General, Illinois \nCitizens Utility Board, Michigan Attorney General, Michigan Citizens Utility Board, Minnesota Department Of \nCommerce, Minnesota Citizens Utility Board, Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board, Citizens Action Coalition Of Indiana, \nInc., And Alliance For Affordable Energy at 3-4, Docket No. ER26-3650, Accession No. 20260918-5323 (Sept. 18, \n2026).(\"Consumer Interest Advocates Protest\"). \n13 Cost Shifting Risk Among Transmission Customers was adopted as a new issue at the August 27, 2026, Large Load \nWorking Group.  Next steps include gathering feedback, coordinating with Transmission Owners and OMS, and \npresenting a proposal to the LLWG, with a filing deadline of November 16, 2026.  See Midcontinent Indep. Sys. \nOperator, Large Load Working Group, Large Load Working Group Minutes at 4-5 (Aug. 27, 2026),  \nhttps://cdn.misoenergy.org/20260923 LLWG Item 01c Minutes 20260827782601.pdf (last visited on Sept. 28, 2026). \n14 Consumer Interest Advocates Protest at 3."},{"page":7,"startToken":1903,"endToken":2288,"text":"7\nrequirements, not about cost shifting.  Moreover, as emphasized earlier, there has been no \ndemonstration that existing customers (especially those that are not adding any material load \nadditions) are causing undue cost shifts, regardless of the scope of any new interconnection \nreliability requirements imposed on those existing customers.   \nAccordingly, the Protesting Public Interest Parties have not shown that the IRR Proposal’s \ngrandfathering provision should be rejected on cost shifting grounds. \nD.\nMISO’s Proposal Reflects Feedback Provided During the Stakeholder \nProcess. \nThe Protesting Public Interest Parties overlook the extensive stakeholder feedback process \nand feedback requests presided over by MISO and the Large Load Working Group.15  The \nCommission affords an appropriate amount of deference to consensus-based proposals developed \nduring the stakeholder process.16  Concerns regarding grandfathering and avoiding retroactive \napplication of new rules were addressed early and throughout the stakeholder process, as \nevidenced by the following responses from MISO: \n\nMay 26, 2026 MISO Response from 4/20/26 LLWG Feedback Request \n(https://cdn.misoenergy.org/MISO Feedback Response Interconnection Reliability \nRequirements (LLWG-2026-3) (20260420)760061.pdf)  \no\nOn Slide 3, MISO highlights the general stakeholder feedback reflecting the \nneed for “clear screening mechanisms, transition rules, and avoidance of \nretroactivity.” (emphasis added)  \n\nJune 16, 2026 MISO Response from the May 14, 2026 LLWG Feedback Request \n(https://cdn.misoenergy.org/MISO Feedback Response to LLWG Large Load \n15 See MISO Transmittal Letter, Docket No. ER26-3650-000, at 2-4, 8-9, 22; see also Prepared Direct Testimony of \nBeibei Li at 22:18-23:5, 34:12-39:22 (detailing the various stakeholder meetings, workshops, and feedback requests \nsince 2024).   \n16 See, e.g., Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 127 FERC ¶ 61,283, at P 33 (2009) (noting that the Commission “accord[s] an \nappropriate degree of deference to RTO stakeholder processes”); see also Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Wis. v. FERC, 545 \nF.3d 1058, 1062-63 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (noting the Commission often gives weight to RTO proposals that reflect the \nposition of the majority of the RTO’s stakeholders) (quoting Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp. v. Midwest Indep. \nTransmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 122 FERC ¶ 61,083, at P 172 (2008)); see also Policy Statement Regarding Regional \nTransmission Groups, 1991-1996 FERC Stats. & Regs., Regs. Preambles ¶ 30,976, at 30,872 (1993) (the Commission \nwill afford an appropriate degree of deference to the stakeholder approval process)."},{"page":8,"startToken":2288,"endToken":2431,"text":"8\nInterconnection \nReliability \nRequirements \nTariff \nDraft \n(LLWG-2026-3) \n(20260514)764417.pdf) \no\nOn Slide 4, MISO in the first item denotes proposed growth bandwidth for \nexisting loads before new rule applicability. \n\nAugust 6, 2026 MISO Response from the June 29, 2026 LLWG Feedback Request \n(https://cdn.misoenergy.org/LLWG Large Load Interconnection Reliability \nRequirements Tariff Draft Response (LLWG-2026-3) (20260629)774218.pdf) \no\nOn Slide 5, MISO emphasizes the feedback theme on protecting existing \narrangements, including the development of specific grandfathering and \ntransitional measures for existing loads.   \nThe Protesting Public Interest Parties do not explain or point to any feedback or rationale \nin the MISO stakeholder process indicating, showing, or demonstrating any compelling reliability \nor cost shift reasons that overcome the general theme flowing out of the stakeholder process \nregarding the importance of grandfathering, a reasonable transition mechanism, and protecting \nexisting loads and commercial arrangements."},{"page":9,"startToken":2431,"endToken":2660,"text":"9\nIII.\nCONCLUSION & REQUEST FOR RELIEF \nWHEREFORE, the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, the Illinois Industrial \nEnergy Consumers, Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, the NIPSCO Large \nCustomer Group, the Louisiana Energy Users Group, and the Texas Industrial Energy Consumers \nrespectfully request that the Commission grant this Motion for Leave to Answer and consider this \nAnswer and our underlying Joint Comments, Requests for Clarification, and Limited Protest when \nissuing and order in this proceeding.  \nRespectfully submitted, \n/s/ Kenneth R. Stark\nKenneth R. Stark  \nVictoria A. Geddis \nRebecca Kimmel \nMcNees Wallace & Nurick LLC  \n100 Pine Street  \nHarrisburg, PA 17101  \nTelephone: (717) 237-8000  \nkstark@mcneeslaw.com\nvgeddis@mcneeslaw.com\nrkimmel@mcneeslaw.com\nCounsel \nto \nthe \nCoalition \nof \nMISO \nTransmission Customers and on behalf of the \nLarge Energy Users \n/s/ Katherine L. Coleman \nKatherine L. Coleman \nJohn Russ Hubbard \nO’Melveny & Meyers LLP  \n303 Colorado St., Suite 2750 \nAustin, TX 78701 \nTelephone: (737) 261-8600  \nkcoleman@omm.com\njhubbard@omm.com\nAttorneys \nfor \nTexas \nIndustrial \nEnergy \nConsumers\n/s/ Edward Fitzhenry \nEdward Fitzhenry \nAttorney at Law \nTelephone: (314) 707-1212 \nedfitzhenrylaw@gmail.com\nCounsel to the Illinois Industrial Energy \nConsumers\n/s/ Randy Young\nRandy Young (#21958) \nCarrie R. Tournillon (#30093) \nGordon D. Polozola (#23900) \nKEAN MILLER LLP \nPost Office Box 3513 \nBaton Rouge, LA 70821 \nTelephone: (225) 387-0999 \nrandy.young@keanmiller.com  \ncarrie.tournillon@keanmiller.com \ngordon.polozola@keanmiller.com \nAttorneys for Louisiana Energy Users Group"},{"page":10,"startToken":2660,"endToken":2736,"text":"10\n/s/ Benjamin J. Holwerda \nBenjamin J. Holwerda (P82110) \nClark Hill PLC \n215 South Washington Square, Suite 200 \nLansing, MI 48933 \nTelephone: (517) 318-3012 \nbholwerda@clarkhill.com\nCounsel to the Association of Businesses \nAdvocating for Tariff Equity \n/s/ Joseph P. Rompala  \nJoseph P. Rompala, Ind. Atty. No. 25078-49 \nLEWIS & KAPPES, P.C. \nOne American Square, Suite 2500 \nIndianapolis, Indiana 46282-0003 \nTelephone: (317) 639-1210 \nJRompala@Lewis-Kappes.com\nCounsel to NIPSCO Large Customer Group \nDate: October 2, 2026"},{"page":11,"startToken":2736,"endToken":2786,"text":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \nI hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person \ndesignated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. Dated this 2nd \nday of October 2026. \n/s/ Victoria A. Geddis  \nCounsel to the Coalition of MISO \nTransmission Customers"}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":2,"endAt":2,"startToken":0,"endToken":242},{"p":2,"at":2,"title":"I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":620,"startToken":242,"endToken":640},{"p":3,"at":620,"title":"II. ANSWER","method":"printed heading","endPage":3,"endAt":632,"startToken":640,"endToken":642},{"p":3,"at":632,"title":"A. MISO’s Grandfathering/Transition Proposal is Just and Reasonable and","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":380,"startToken":642,"endToken":1259},{"p":5,"at":380,"title":"B. The Public Interest Organizations and Consumer Interest Advocates Have","method":"printed heading","endPage":6,"endAt":471,"startToken":1259,"endToken":1599},{"p":6,"at":471,"title":"C. Concerns about Cost Shifting Risk among Transmission Customers are More","method":"printed heading","endPage":7,"endAt":511,"startToken":1599,"endToken":1973},{"p":7,"at":511,"title":"D. MISO’s Proposal Reflects Feedback Provided During the Stakeholder","method":"printed heading","endPage":9,"endAt":2,"startToken":1973,"endToken":2432},{"p":9,"at":2,"title":"III. CONCLUSION & REQUEST FOR RELIEF","method":"printed heading","endPage":11,"endAt":0,"startToken":2432,"endToken":2736},{"p":11,"at":0,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":11,"endAt":315,"startToken":2736,"endToken":2786}]}