I concur in today’s order denying MISO’s petition for declaratory order because I agree that the plain reading of MISO’s Tariff allows MISO’s IMM to review and analyze the competitive or other market impacts of MISO’s transmission planning activities to the extent that doing so protects and fosters competition while minimizing interference with open and competitive markets.
I write separately to state my belief that a strong working relationship between an RTO and its market monitor is essential. I am disappointed that the parties here turned to the Commission to settle a dispute that, in my opinion, they should have resolved themselves.
Of course, I am fully committed to working with my colleagues to address questions like the one here when they are presented to the Commission, and I will do so without hesitation. However, in a situation like this one, which is essentially a contractual dispute, the best outcomes are achieved when the parties reach agreement among themselves—not when the Commission is asked to interpret decades-old language. When parties ask the Commission to answer a “yes or no” question, they forfeit the opportunity to reach a compromise solution that results in better outcomes for everyone involved. So, I encourage parties to take full advantage of the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Service to seek such a compromise. The team working in that office has a positive track record of bringing parties together with durable solutions.
On the substance of this petition, I also write separately to emphasize my view that the market monitor’s work with respect to MISO’s transmission planning activities should be focused on reviewing and analyzing the competitive or other market impacts of transmission plans to the extent that doing so protects and fosters competition while minimizing interference with open and competitive markets. Put simply, the market monitor’s work should be grounded in analyzing the results of the transmission planning process, and my vote to deny this petition is not a basis to create new duties for the market monitor that are akin to those of an independent transmission monitor. While I have an open mind on the merits of independent transmission monitors, it is not lost on me that this Commission considered, at length, whether to require independent transmission monitoring in the multi-year Order No. 1920 Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning rulemaking process, and the Commission did not reach consensus on that issue. Thus, it would be wrong to interpret today’s order as creating an independent transmission monitor in MISO.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.