Legalectric

Yesterday, I’d posted the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s filing (well, they call it Minnesota Utility Regulators) in this FERC docket, where 5 state Commissions filed a complaint at FERC against MISO, claiming they screwed up the calculations of benefits and used that erroneous result as the basis for approval of the MISO Tranche 2.1 transmission projects, expected to cost at least $22 BILLION. Yes, that’s BILLION.

The MISO Tranche 2.1:

Over the last two days, there have been at least 100 intervention filings in this docket, every entity with some interest in electricity, from transmission companies, utilities, developers, and even No CapX 2020 and Legalectric, filed for Intervention. To look at the FERC docket (EL25-109) go HERE: https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search and at the “Enter Docket Number” box, fill it in: EL-25-109

Last night, MISO’s Independent Market Monitor (IMM) – see “Special Reports” at bottom of link) filed its Motion to Intervene and Comments, via Potomac Economics, Ltd., the IMM, supporting the Complaint of the “Concerned Commissions,” the Complaint essentially arguing points raised by the MISO IMM. How does that work? (below is Comment to the PUC and the attached MISO IMM Comments from last night and 5/29/2024, want them where anyone can find them, it’s that important.)

Here’s yesterday’s MISO IMM filing, and it’s a delightful read:

The Comment starts off with a bang, that “we estimate that Tranche 2.1 will cost each family in the Midwest more than $2,500 in present value terms.” In stating at the beginning the classic “tell them what you’re going to tell them,” MISO’s IMM on page 3:

The basic arguments are that “MISO’s Future 2A is Not Realistic and Does Not Reflect its Member’s Plans.” If consistent, it would look like this:

These issues with “benefits” are nothing new. Last May, MISO’s IMM released comments critical of the same MISO’s benefit metrics:

These MISO “benefits” have been at issue for an even LONGER time. Back in 2011, benefits were addressed in our Jewell-Jinkins Initial Brief, p. 9-13, for the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line:

And here we are, 14 years later. Back then, MISO characterized the “benefits” of the MISO MVP 17 project transmission build-out per witness Ellis’ testimony at Ex.-MISO-Ellis-1, p. 49 (PSC REF# 364901):

For some reason, by 2017, just 6 years later, much had changed and the MISO claimed “benefits” significantly increased overall, per Ellis again, Ex.-MISO-Ellis-1,p. 49 (PSC REF# 364903):

Check out this docket, it is HOT!!! Look at all the utility toadies weighing in, hoping reality won’t be outweighed by the sheer volume of Intervenors opposing the Complaint, most paid to defend MISO with zero knowledge of the issues raised. We’ll see.

Again, to look at the FERC docket (EL25-109) go HERE: https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search and at the “Enter Docket Number” box, fill it in: EL-25-109.

Filed just now with PUC: