I concur in this order rejecting MISO’s ERAS proposal because I fear that the proposal risks replicating the same backlogs and delays plaguing MISO’s existing generation interconnection queue, which are what put MISO in its current situation in the first place. Furthermore, insufficient limitations on the requests that may be studied through ERAS risks a court striking down the proposal due to claims that it is unjust and unreasonable or unduly discriminatory or preferential, leaving MISO worse off than taking no action. At best, these risks combine to render MISO’s proposal imperfect. At worst, these risks may actually undermine MISO’s ability to quickly obtain the very resources that it claims it needs. I believe that today’s order provides MISO clear guidance to work with RERRAs and other stakeholders to expeditiously resubmit a revised ERAS proposal with practical limits on the volume of interconnection requests that will be studied, such that the proposal is tailored to meet the identified resource adequacy and reliability needs.
This was not an easy decision. I share MISO’s concerns about its reliability and resource adequacy challenges. Like other RTOs/ISOs, MISO is challenged by persistent interconnection backlogs, permitting delays, and supply chain constraints. While some of these factors are within MISO’s control, others are not. But they combine to limit MISO’s ability to quickly and efficiently connect new resources to the grid in time to meet its needs. MISO documents this problem: the amount of generation resources that has completed the interconnection queue process, executed interconnection agreements, but nonetheless have not yet reached commercial operation, exceeds 50 GW.[1]
Working alongside our colleagues at state commissions, it is incumbent upon this Commission to maintain its longstanding obligation to serve new customers—from data centers for artificial intelligence to re-shored manufacturing facilities—as quickly and efficiently as possible, while also continuing to ensure reliability for all customers. However, it would be a mistake for this Commission to approve a solution that risks repeating the problem. While MISO clearly intends to design a process that considers only “tens” of interconnection requests per year, there is no guarantee that interest in ERAS will be limited, and MISO concedes that its current proposal “cannot guarantee the timeline of ERAS if multiple requests are submitted in the same quarter in the same area of the grid due to the serial nature of the ERAS process.”[2] Simply put, because the lack of limitations on the volume of interconnection requests threatens to overwhelm the ERAS queue with processing delays, I cannot find that the proposal is just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
Furthermore, for the reasons discussed in today’s order, I am concerned that accepting MISO’s proposal in its current form will not withstand judicial scrutiny. The consequences of such an outcome are severe: if the Commission’s decision were overturned and the Commission were ordered to rescind ERAS interconnection agreements, the upheaval could seriously harm MISO’s customers. Therefore, for ERAS to provide certainty to the industries and customers that depend upon new generation resources, the proposal must be legally durable.
I agree with Chairman Christie and Commissioner See that it is also important to acknowledge MISO states’ critically important role—in MISO, states have primary responsibility for resource adequacy, and most states are vertically integrated. To be clear, today’s order does not dispute that RERRAs should be in the driver’s seat when identifying resource adequacy needs and the projects to address those needs. I support MISO’s reliance on RERRAs’ expert assessment of their resource adequacy needs. I am also encouraged that MISO commits to pursuing a solution to make sure that this proposal works for retail choice jurisdictions in Illinois and Michigan.[3] Incorporating that solution would improve a revised ERAS proposal. While MISO considers a revised ERAS proposal, I also stand ready to consider any other request from MISO or other parties in the region regarding other mechanisms to expedite interconnecting resources that address demonstrated, pressing, near-term reliability or resource adequacy needs—such as individual waiver requests generally consistent with requests the Commission has granted in certain circumstances.[4]
Today’s order provides a clear path for MISO to work with states, RERRAs, and other MISO stakeholders on a revised ERAS proposal that is tailored to ensure that the resources necessary to address identified near-term resource adequacy or reliability needs are rapidly studied and ultimately constructed. I encourage MISO to establish practical limits on the volume of interconnection requests that will be studied through ERAS—such as, for example, opening a one-time ERAS submittal window with a limit on the number of projects that can be offered by each RERRA, state, or region within MISO—to ensure that needed projects can receive a GIA within the 90-day timeline offered in MISO’s filing, with sufficient certainty of their network upgrade requirements and costs. Given the resource adequacy and reliability challenges identified by MISO, I also commit to work as fast as possible to consider a revised proposal should one be filed.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.