Docket No. ER26-2376-000
We concur fully with today’s decision because our prior order authorized MGS Wisconsin to use the rate treatments at issue here.[1] We write separately, however, because we agree the time has likely come for the Commission to reconsider its approach to granting hypothetical capital structure incentives on a going-forward basis.
It is increasingly obvious that a key barrier to energy infrastructure buildout in this country is fostering public trust that particular projects are needed. Transparency as to how the Commission will consider requests for incentive rate treatment is essential to increasing certainty that needed infrastructure is constructed. This especially applies to the hypothetical capital structure at issue in this order, and—in our view—it is time to develop an approach that more thoughtfully and deliberately balances affordability concerns, the need for transparency, and the imperative that we provide as much certainty as necessary to build energy infrastructure. We believe that project sponsors can and should do more to explain how their projects, and their requests for a hypothetical capital structure, will provide reliable power and save consumers money.
As noted, none of this is ripe for today’s order. But we look forward to working with our colleagues to sharpen our evaluation of hypothetical capital structure requests.
For these reasons, we respectfully concur.
[1] See Midcontinent Grid Solutions Iowa, LLC, 193 FERC ¶ 61,188 (2025).