Docket No. ER25-507-000
I concur with today’s order. I write separately to encourage MISO to develop an exemption to MISO’s queue cap for a proposed generation facility that is designated by state utility regulators[1] as necessary to achieve resource adequacy.
On January 19, 2024, the Commission issued an order that accepted MISO’s qualitative queue reforms filed in Docket No. ER24-340-000 but rejected MISO’s first queue cap proposal filed in a separate docket, Docket No. ER24-341-000.[2] I concurred in part and dissented in part, opposing the Commission’s rejection of MISO’s first queue cap proposal.[3] As part of MISO’s first queue cap proposal, MISO proposed an exemption for state-designated generators, and the Commission wrongly rejected that exemption in the January 2024 Order.[4]
Here, in this second try for a queue cap, MISO failed to include a state exemption, perhaps being gun shy after the Commission’s ill-considered rejection of MISO’s state exemption on its first try. I am nonetheless disappointed in MISO’s failure to include a state exemption in its second filing, as the membership of the Commission has changed significantly since last January and has already shown much more acknowledgement of the critically important role played by state utility regulators in ensuring reliable power to their states’ consumers.[5] MISO should have stuck to its guns and vigorously restated its reasons for including a state exemption.[6]
That said, as the order recognizes, a state exemption is not before the Commission in this proceeding, and the Commission is limited to addressing the specific section 205 filing before it.[7] Given the dire need for the queue cap, I am compelled to support MISO’s proposal.[8]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
______________________________
Mark C. Christie
Chairman
[1] The technical term used in both this order and the January 2024 Order is “RERRA,” which stands for “relevant electric retail regulatory authority.”
[2] Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 186 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2024) (January 2024 Order), order on reh’g, 187 FERC ¶ 61,031 (2024).
[3] Id. (Christie, Comm’r, concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Christie Statement), https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/commissioner-christies-concurrence-part-and-dissent-part-concerning-miso-gip.
[4] See January 2024 Order, 186 FERC ¶ 61,054 at PP 172-179.
[5] See, e.g., Bldg. for the Future Through Elec. Reg’l Transmission Planning & Cost Allocation, Order No. 1920-A, 189 FERC ¶ 61,126, at P 2 (2024) (“In this order, we refine and improve Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning by building on the reforms adopted in Order No. 1920, with a particular focus on ensuring that states have a robust role in Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning and cost allocation processes established in this rule.”); id. P 10 (“[T]he modifications and clarifications granted on rehearing expand states’ critical role in determining the cost allocation approach most suitable for each transmission planning region. These modifications and clarifications are necessary because the Commission recognizes that states play a critical role in the successful planning of, the decision about how to pay for, and ultimately, the deployment of beneficial regional transmission facilities.”).
[6] The Organization of MISO States, Inc. (OMS) overwhelmingly supported the state exemption proposal in MISO’s first filing, as I noted in my prior statement. Christie Statement at P 7 & n.10 (quoting OMS Comments, Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER24-341-000, at 8 (filed Dec. 4, 2023) (“OMS appreciates MISO’s inclusion of the RERRA exemption to its proposed queue cap as a necessary acknowledgement of states’ authority over resource adequacy issues. While the mechanics of implementing the RERRA exemption are largely undefined in the Cap Filing, OMS views the RERRA exemption as an important but limited feature of the cap to ensure that MISO will timely study generation projects needed to meet resource adequacy requirements.”)). Here, OMS supports MISO’s filing without such an exemption, and the OMS Comments do not offer an explanation for the apparent change of position on the state exemption. See OMS Dec. 16, 2024 Comments at 6 (“One significant change that is particularly relevant to OMS is the removal of a ‘[RERRA] exemption’ that would have allowed states to identify projects needed for resource adequacy and created an avenue for these necessary projects to be studied regardless of where they fell under the Queue Cap.”).
[7] See Order at P 91.
[8] See, e.g., Transmittal at 1-2 (“The evidence convincingly demonstrates that absent a method for managing the rapidly growing size and complexity of the queue, the recent queue reforms mandated by [the Commission] and MISO’s extensive queue reform efforts will be less—if not entirely—ineffective both in maintaining an efficient process and in facilitating study assumptions that reflect realistic system conditions and assumptions.” (citation omitted)); see also Order at P 31.