MISO Asks FERC to Approve a 71 GW Queue Acceleration by October 19, and One IPP Calls It a Risk Shift
- FERC & Federal Policy & Markets Regulatory
Marin Holt
- 0
- 8 minutes read
- Projects affected: about 71 GW in DPP 2022
- FERC decision requested by: October 19, 2026
- Penalty-free exit deadline: October 20, 2026 (Decision Point II)
- Withdrawal threshold: rises from 35% to 50% network upgrade cost increase
- Delay without action: at least 18 months
MISO asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 21, 2026 to approve changes to its last legacy interconnection queue. That study cycle holds about 71 GW of proposed projects. The grid operator wants a decision by October 19, 2026. Comments filed on October 5 show state regulators and several developers backing the plan, and one independent power producer protesting it.
The filing targets the Definitive Planning Phase 2022 cycle, the oldest group still working through study. MISO told FERC that without the changes the DPP 2022 process would slip by at least 18 months. That delay would push back every cycle behind it.
What changes, and what it replaces
Three changes sit in the filing. Developers would get a penalty-free exit from the queue before Decision Point II, the commitment milestone that falls on October 20. The threshold for a penalty-free withdrawal would rise from a 35% increase in network upgrade costs to a 50% increase. The final study phase would be limited to one restudy. That limit would apply to all cycles, not only to DPP 2022.
The restudy cap is the structural piece. Late withdrawals force MISO to recalculate network upgrade costs for everyone still in the group. Each recalculation moves the finish line for projects that never left. Capping restudies at one trades precision for a fixed schedule.
Who filed, and what they said
The Organization of MISO States, which represents state utility regulators across the footprint, filed in support on October 5. Its backing was explicitly tentative. The group told FERC the approach “can materially accelerate the processing of legacy queue cycles while preserving MISO’s responsibility to identify and address reliability concerns.” Advanced Energy United argued that “bold action is needed if the region is going to achieve its target of a one-year interconnection cycle.” RWE Americas, Ameren and Alliant Energy also supported the filing.
Pathway Power, an independent power producer, protested. It told FERC that MISO built the proposal with a limited set of stakeholders. Pathway Power named Clearway Energy Group, NextEra Energy Resources and EDP Renewables. It said the stakeholder process allowed only 10 days for comment. On the withdrawal threshold, Pathway Power said the change “shifts financial risk to customers remaining in the queue and away from MISO, which, if the proposal is accepted, will have diminished incentive to provide accurate cost estimates going forward.”
Why It Matters
The procedural calendar is the story. MISO asked for an order on October 19 and Decision Point II lands on October 20. FERC has one day of margin. If the order slips, developers reach a binding commitment milestone under the old rules. The new rules would still sit undecided. That is the outcome the filing exists to avoid.
Pathway Power’s objection identifies a real asymmetry. The higher withdrawal threshold means a developer absorbs a larger cost overrun before walking away without forfeiting deposits. MISO produces those cost estimates. A wider tolerance band around its own numbers reduces the consequence of estimating badly. Whether that matters in practice depends on how often DPP 2022 cost estimates have moved past the old threshold, and the filing record is where that answer would sit.
For anyone holding a position in DPP 2022, the near-term decision is concrete. A penalty-free exit window before October 20 is worth more to a marginal project than another 18 months of study at risk. Developers with firm offtake and financing have the opposite calculation. That split is what separates the supporters from the protester in this docket.
Critical Perspective
The support in this docket is thinner than the filing count suggests. The Organization of MISO States chose the word tentatively. RWE Americas backed the proposal and then asked for more, flagging projects that already hold interconnection agreements and still face cost reallocation when others withdraw. Support conditioned on further reform is not the same as endorsement.
Pathway Power’s procedural objection is the harder one to set aside. If MISO built the package with Clearway Energy Group, NextEra Energy Resources and EDP Renewables, and then gave stakeholders 10 days, the parties who shaped the remedy sit among the parties it serves. That is worth naming even if the remedy is sound. The queue holds developers who were not in that room.
The one-day margin is the part nobody chose. MISO asked for an order on October 19 to govern a milestone on October 20. That margin is MISO’s to request and not FERC’s to guarantee. If the order slips, the live question becomes what binds a developer who exits on October 20 under rules the Commission has not yet approved.
