Commissioner Christie’s Concurrence in MISO Minimum Capacity Obligation Rehearing Proceeding, ER22-496-002

Docket No. ER22-496-002

I concur with sustaining the result of the Commission’s August 31, 2022 order in Docket Nos. ER22-496-000 and ER22-496-001, which rejected MISO’s Minimum Capacity Obligation (MCO) proposal.[1]  I write separately to emphasize the following.

As I indicated in my concurrence to the MCO Order, I voted to reject MISO’s MCO proposal only because of the potential market power concerns raised by the MISO Independent Market Monitor.[2]  There is nothing inherently wrong with an MCO in the MISO capacity market – which, we should remember, is voluntary – and if MISO can resolve such concerns, the outcome of a future filing should not be predetermined by our order herein.  Indeed, I appreciate the concerns expressed by MISO and other parties in this proceeding that an overreliance by load-serving entities (LSEs) on MISO’s capacity auction may jeopardize the reliability of the MISO system.  In my prior concurrence, I emphasized the primary responsibility of the MISO states in ensuring their LSEs have adequate resources to serve consumers:

No one disputes that the MISO capacity market has always been a purely residual option; it is not the primary option for an LSE to obtain the resources needed to ensure reliability.  Importantly, states need to focus on their own authority to ensure adequate generating resources to serve their citizens and not default to an administrative construct regulated by FERC.[3] 

For the reasons given above, I respectfully concur.

______________________________

Mark C. Christie

Commissioner