What can I say, there’s no photo for “queasy feeling of impending stink”

I’ve got this non-specific queasiness.  Correction — I’ve got a specific queasiness and I think I know why.  Today was a “Stakeholder Meeting” of the Organization of MISO States.  That’s right… ready?  OMMMMMSOMMMMMSOMMMMMS

I guess I just didn’t meditate myself into the right state of mind…  I wasn’t hypnotized by the baffling bullshit.  Y’all know how excited I get when these utilities try to pass of some lame excuse as “need” for transmission.  Now we’re getting a wholesale version of that, where need is presumed, and they’re going to take a few months and a lot of people’s time figuring out some bogus justification and in the process, a new regulatory scheme that circumvents state regulation and establishes a new regional transmission regulatory authority.  Watch… it’s straight out of the Wind on the Wires legislative agenda for 2005… and Mikey Bull is on hand to grease the skids for his former boss Gov. Pawlenty and the new boss…  WOW, subset of the Izaak Walton League.  That’s what I think is coming down the pike.

Whatever is she talking about, you say… it’s called the Organization of MISO States.

Who is the Organization of MISO States?

OMS Board

OMS Executive Committee

OMS Members – that isn’t listed

Who are they speaking for?  Seems they’re claiming to speak for the Public Service Commissions and Public Utilities Commissions of the many states that are MISO.

And whoever they’re speaking for, they’re speaking a lot:

OMS page for FERC filings

Here’s what they said about the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors:

OMS Comments on DOE’s NIETC – July 6, 2007

I have this thing about trajectory, and I’ve got a sense where this is going.  So now my job is to get up to speed on this, explain it all in a very clear way that can’t be misunderstood, and keep an eye on my navel… OMMMMMS.

Oh, and did I mention that “cost allocation” is THE driver?  In this time of zero capital available for “capital expenditures” cost allocation and recovery are issues.  What’s wrong with the current MISO scheme of cost allocation?

And the big question: Who’s minding the public interest?

2 Responses to “Circumventing state authority — transmission in search of “need””

  1. Mike Bull Says:

    Well, not quite — today’s meeting was a stakeholder meeting for the Upper Midwest Transmission Development Initiative, announced and formed by the Governors of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, to work through what the most cost-effective mix of transmission and renewable resource development needed to meet the renewable requirements of these 5 states — a kind of Midwest version of the Renewable Energy Zone process being carried out in California, Colorado, Texas, etc. Each state has two representatives to the UMTDI exec. committee, one representing the Governor, and one from each state utility commission. OMS is agreeing to host the UMTDI website, and MISO is providing staff and analytic resources — but its not an OMS or MISO thing. It’s the 5 states’ show. Recommendations from the exec. committee will be presented to the 5 Governors next spring. So, it’s all about how the states can be working together, not circumventing any state’s authority or jurisdiction.

  2. Mike Bull Says:

    And, yes, cost allocation — how the costs for the new transmission infrastructure will be shared among the ratepayers of the various states & utilities — is the key issue.

Leave a Reply