By Christen Smith and Rich Heidorn Jr.
VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — Consumer advocates, industrial customers and state regulators asked FERC last week to reject the PJM Transmission Owner sector’s critical infrastructure mitigation plan as filed, saying it lacks transparency and improperly restricts input by stakeholders and the RTO.
But PJM joined trade groups WIRES and Edison Electric Institute in calling for approval of the plan, which was filed by the TOs on Jan. 17 (ER20-841). PJM’s decision to support the TOs left advocates and some other stakeholders frustrated and disappointed.
Ken Seiler, PJM’s vice president of planning, told the Planning Committee on Feb. 4 that the RTO would back the plan because the projects must be addressed, sooner rather than later.
“We believe it’s prudent to mitigate the risk of loss or potential loss of these facilities,” he said. “We will continue the stakeholder process with an eye towards looking forward, but we are going to intervene and provide support [for the filing] at this time.”
The TOs proposed a confidential process for removing critical transmission infrastructure off NERC’s CIP-014 list. They offered other sectors an opportunity to comment on the plan but have invoked their rights under Attachment M-4 to file it without majority support of the entire membership.
NERC requires TOs to protect CIP-014 assets, those whose loss or sabotage could result in widespread instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading outages. Incumbent TOs say their proposal will harden these facilities — of which fewer than 20 exist within PJM’s footprint — and get them off the list, improving reliability for everyone. But other sectors remain in the dark about most of the plan’s details, including which assets are involved and how much it will cost.
Seiler told the Members Committee last month that the solutions under consideration are “fairly simple” and involve things like line rerouting and substation reconfiguration — minor projects that would cost “nowhere near” $1 billion.
Wary of the opacity of the plan, stakeholders approved a new task force in December that would consider governing document language to address current and future critical infrastructure projects. (See “Critical Infrastructure Mitigation,” PJM PC/TEAC Briefs: Dec. 12, 2019.) Of note, stakeholders rejected an alternative issue charge that would direct the task force to focus only on future projects.
Erik Heinle, of the D.C. Office of the People’s Counsel, told RTO Insider that PJM’s decision is “very disappointing,” given stakeholders repeated insistence on additional review and overwhelming support for a resolution that argues the proposal conflicts with PJM’s Operating Agreement at the January meeting of the MC. (See PJM Members Resist Critical Infrastructure TO Filing.)
“As a member-driven organization, it’s incumbent on PJM staff to consider and reflect the views of the members when taking positions,” Heinle said. “In this case, they find themselves separated from the view of the majority of their membership.”
West Virginia Consumer Advocate Jackie Roberts said PJM’s “urgency” to act on mitigation “is a surprise.”
“This question has been pending for some time,” she said. “What is truly disappointing is PJM’s complete disregard of stakeholder input [and] process and not informing stakeholders of its decision until the day of the filing at FERC.”
Comments Filed
Consumer advocates from New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois joined Heinle and Roberts in protesting the filing. The group said the TOs inappropriately classify the projects as supplemental projects despite their regional impact, include incorrect cost recovery procedures and ignore the stakeholder process.
WIRES and EEI filed comments supporting the TOs’ filing and asking FERC to approve it “expeditiously.”
The two groups stressed the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the TOs’ plans, citing the compliance section of CIP-014-2, which states that: “To protect the confidentiality and sensitive nature of the evidence for demonstrating compliance with this standard, all evidence will be retained at the transmission owner’s and transmission operator’s facilities.”
“Publicly disclosing information that identifies facilities that have been determined to be CIP-014-2 critical transmission stations and substations before a solution can be put in place to mitigate the vulnerabilities of identified critical facilities could seriously endanger the physical security of these facilities,” WIRES said.
The Organization of PJM States Inc. (OPSI) said the commission should find the filing deficient because it “unreasonably limits the role of PJM [and] state commissions.”
“The Attachment M-4 project planning process should strive to maximize openness, transparency and opportunity for stakeholder input into CMP [CIP-014 mitigation project] planning subject to confidentiality constraints needed to protect facility security and system security,” it said. “Insofar as CMPs are treated as supplemental projects, the commission should confirm that reduced transparency associated with CMPs under Attachment M-4 requires more participation in planning by PJM as the independent transmission planner/adviser.”
OPSI also complained that the proposal would allow consultations between a TO or PJM and affected state commissions at the TO’s sole discretion. “Under no circumstance would it be appropriate, just or reasonable to allow a transmission owner to be the judge of a state commission’s capability to protect confidential material, particularly material affecting that state’s regulated utilities or ratepayers.”
The organization also said TOs’ cost recovery should be predicated on FERC’s confirmation that the CMP will “reduce the severity of the consequences of a physical attack” on a critical transmission station or substation. They also called for a benefit/cost test to ensure “that the transmission customers that will be required to pay for the project receive benefits associated with the risk reduction commensurate with the costs they will be required to pay.”
The PJM Industrial Customer Coalition complained of “deficiencies regarding the proposed procedures for approving projects, the transparency of the process, stakeholder access to relevant information to evaluate the necessity and prudency of Attachment M-4 projects, and the rate and cost recovery mechanisms for Attachment M-4 projects.”
“The commission should reject the filing as premature and allow stakeholders to complete their work effort to address the issues raised by the attachment M-4 proposal,” they said, adding that regional reliability issues should not be addressed through procedures used for supplemental projects.
LSP Transmission Holdings said the TOs have used the CIP-014 process “as (yet another) opportunity to benefit incumbent transmission owner shareholders, at the expense of ratepayers and other PJM stakeholders, by shielding a new subset of transmission development intended for system reliability, rather than local or zonal needs, from PJM planning, transparency and ratepayer-beneficial competition.”
Neutrality
PJM proclaimed neutrality throughout most of the debate, despite protests from stakeholders that mitigation of the sites presents reliability challenges the RTO should handle. (See PJM Remains Neutral in CIP-014 Debate.) Seiler’s announcement was the first public backing for the TOs’ plan.
PJM spokeswoman Susan Buehler said the RTO met with consumer advocate representatives Feb. 4 to discuss its decision, reiterating that it was based on the reasoning that “prompt resolution of these projects is in the public interest to mitigate the risk associated with the potential loss of a CIP-14 facility.”
“Ultimately, the decision to make the M-4 filing was the transmission owners, and PJM’s response is dictated by FERC’s 60-day deadline to consider that filing,” she said. “We recognize the stakeholder interest in this topic — including the issue charge and resolution (both of which we discussed in our filing) — and we look forward to working with stakeholders on standards going forward.”