Docket No. ER23-630-000
I concur on today’s order to highlight the transparency concerns expressed in comments by the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers and the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (together, Industrial Customers). I agree with the order’s finding that these comments are beyond the scope of this proceeding because MISO does not propose to revise the confidentiality provisions of Attachment Y in its filing. Nonetheless, I believe Industrial Customers’ concerns have merit and may warrant revisions to MISO’s tariff.
Industrial Customers explain that, per MISO’s rules, when a generation owner provides the requisite notice of the suspension of operation or retirement of a generator, MISO only makes that information public under certain circumstances, most notably if MISO finds that the suspension or retirement presents a transmission reliability issue.[1] If MISO does not identify such an issue, the generation owner’s notice is kept confidential until such time as the generator is retired.[2]
MISO’s proposal that we accept today extends the lead time for a generation owner to provide notice of suspension or retirement from 26 weeks to four full quarterly study periods.[3] A byproduct of that extension is that notice of the suspension or retirement may be withheld from stakeholders, market participants, and the public for significantly longer. Industrial Customers argue that this lack of transparency inhibits accurate and timely signals that would allow generation and transmission planning processes to respond to the suspension or retirement.[4] They note that market participants may therefore be unable to bring new generation or demand-side resources to the market in a timely fashion to compensate for the suspension or retirement and may have inadequate time to hedge exposure to potentially higher market prices resulting from the suspension or retirement.[5]
According to both MISO and Industrial Customers, MISO originally proposed in the stakeholder process to revise the confidentiality provisions of Attachment Y to improve transparency to address these concerns, but that due to objections about the confidential treatment of business decisions those revisions were eliminated.[6] I acknowledge—as do Industrial Customers[7]—that transparency in this context requires a balance between generation owners’ desire for confidentiality and the consumer benefits of earlier notice to allow market forces and planning processes to efficiently respond to generation supply changes. However, I am not convinced that MISO’s current confidentiality provisions strike that balance appropriately. As Industrial Customers point out, at least one other RTO—PJM—appears to have struck a balance that allows for significantly earlier notice and greater transparency.[8]
Where possible, the Commission seeks to leverage competitive markets and good planning processes for the benefit of the consumers we are assigned to protect. But those tools work only as well as the information available to market participants and other stakeholders. The primary basis for MISO’s proposal in this proceeding is that the number of generator suspension and retirement requests has substantially increased in recent years and MISO expects that trend to continue.[9] This means that potential negative effects of insufficient transparency will only grow as the fleet transition continues. I encourage MISO and its stakeholders to revisit whether more timely public notice of forthcoming suspensions and retirements is feasible.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Industrial Customers Comments at 2.
[2] Id. at pp. 2-3 (citing MISO Tariff at section 38.2.7(a)(ii)).
[3] Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 182 FERC ¶ 61,066, at P 13 (2023).
[4] Industrial Customers Comments at 4.
[5] Id.
[6] MISO Transmittal at 4; Industrial Customers Comments at 3.
[7] Industrial Customers Comments at 4-5.
[8] Id. at 5.
[9] MISO Transmittal at 1.