A municipal utility was contemplating leaving its joint action agency and wanted to determine the value of its transmission capacity rights if it were to sell those rights to another member of the agency. After conferring with industry colleagues, city managers of the two municipals engaged MCR to conduct an independent valuation analysis of the transmission capacity rights to establish a fair sales price.
A cooperative’s transmission rates had been escalating at a higher pace than the average of other transmission owners in the RTO. A senior vice president of the cooperative engaged MCR to compare their transmission-related costs and resultant rate to those of a peer group of neighboring utilities to understand the current and projected rate gap and the drivers of the cost differences.
The general manager of a MISO transmission-owning municipal electric utility saw an MCR conference presentation and became interested in MCR’s Attachment O formula rate services. The general manager engaged MCR to make sure the utility was properly recording its costs and optimizing its transmission revenue in its existing transmission formula rate.
A long time transmission owner in an RTO wanted to ensure that its transmission costs were properly recorded and documented and that its transmission revenue was being optimized when faced with changing RTO formula rate protocols.
MCR conducted a quantitative analysis before a joint action agency decided to invest in two major new transmission projects.
A municipal utility was faced with rapidly rising transmission rates from the neighboring incumbent IOU transmission owner. It had been many years since the municipal conducted an in-depth review of the IOU’s transmission costs. The municipal engaged MCR to review the IOU’s transmission formula rate template to ensure the costs were accurate.
A joint action agency was faced with an unusually large transmission true-up charge and was concerned the neighboring IOU made a significant analytical error.
A municipal electric utility, which is an existing transmission-owning utility in MISO, wanted to ensure that its transmission-related costs were being properly recorded in the MISO Attachment O cost template and that they were optimizing their annual transmission revenue requirement (“ATRR”), consistent with the tariff.
A joint action agency decided to invest in a major new transmission project with other surrounding utilities. MCR assisted with filings to receive transmission rate incentives for the project.
A joint action agency requested MCR to provide an analysis to determine a recommended ROE and support the recommended ROE with related expert testimony in anticipation of making a Section 205 rate filing at FERC.
A joint action agency was faced with an under recovery of its transmission-related costs because the standard transmission formula rate was not appropriate for its particular business situation. The joint action agency requested MCR’s assistance to help increase recovery of these costs.
A joint action agency formed a Transco in order to own transmission assets it had acquired from its members. As part of establishing the company, the Transco faced a number of contentious issues in its associated Section 205 FERC rate filing to establish its transmission formula rate. The Transco engaged MCR to provide expert testimony on one of the most critical issues in the filing: determining the appropriate level of cost of capital.
A municipal utility client was contemplating membership as a transmission owner in a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) and asked MCR to provide an independent cost-benefit analysis.
A generation and transmission (G&T) cooperative was investment in a highly visible regional transmission project that had complicated cost allocation methods. The client asked MCR to lead the client’s working team in conducting an analysis of the economics of the project and whether there was sufficient value for its members.
A G&T asked MCR to lead an effort to develop a transmission business plan that articulated a clear vision and identified transmission investment opportunities that would enhance the reliability of cooperative members while also providing revenue that could partially hedge rising transmission rates.
A municipal utility asked MCR to help determine whether it should be entitled to build a substation based on a desire to be neutrally invested within its pricing zone and to assist with negotiations with the incumbent utility.
A municipal utility recently expanded its transmission system and expected continued significant transmission investment for the next several years. The client was interested in whether it made economic sense to place its transmission assets and generation into MISO and take network integrated transmission service (“NITS”) as a MISO transmission owner (“TO”).
A transmission-owning municipal electric utility in MISO was significantly upgrading its existing transmission assets while moving from point-to-point service to network integrated transmission service (“NITS”). Because of this, the municipal wanted to ensure the upgraded assets obtained full revenue recovery in the MISO Attachment O formula rate to help offset their upcoming NITS costs.
A G&T was interested in exploring the possibility of joining a major RTO in its region. The G&T wanted to know which of its transmission-related costs would typically be included in the RTO transmission rate and how the RTO rate compared to the current transmission rate paid by their members.
An independent transmission developer was filing comments at FERC to a Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) to support transmission incentives. The independent transmission developer engaged MCR to support two specific return on equity (“ROE”) incentives: the continuance of an existing Transco ROE adder and the introduction of a new ROE adder to encourage joint investment with public power and cooperatives.