So, in essence, MISO T planning looks at a - "least regrets" plan given that the future is uncertain. The slide referenced is looking at the 20 years ahead into the future via 3 lens -

Future 1, this is the first lens: This is like a business as usual scenario. From MISO definitions, "The footprint develops in line with 100% of utility IRPs and 85% of utility announcements, state mandates, goals,or preferences.•Emissions decline as an outcome of utilityplans.•Load growth consistent with current trends." So pretty much, known plans without a lot of hypothesis and posturing.

Future 2, this is the second lens: Here's where the "what if" hypothesis starts. Again from MISO, what if  footprint "wide carbon emissions reduction of 60% by 2040.•Energy increases 30% footprint-wide by 2040 driven by electrification." The hypothesis being, you would need more transmission if 60% reductions by 2040 is a policy mandate plus some decent electrification goals.

Future 3, this is the third lens: This is the "go big or go home" - these are my words. Again from MISO, "footprint-wide carbon emissions reduction of 80% by 2040.•Increased electrification drives a footprint-wide 50% increase in energy by 2040." The lens here is, more aggressive emissions reduction with more electrification goals.

Going back to the least regrets part - what is the T plan that is a common denominator in these of these 3 futures? That's the end game here.

Helps?