FERC on Tuesday accepted PJM Transmission Owners’ Tariff amendments governing end-of-life (EOL) projects, a proposal that was hotly contested by stakeholders (ER20-2046).
The TOs had proposed to identify and include asset-management projects within the existing planning procedures of Tariff Attachment M-3 and to include procedures for the identification and planning for EOL needs of transmission lines 100 kV and above.
The TOs voted in June to approve a Federal Power Act Section 205 filing of the proposed amendments through voting procedures contained in the Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement (CTOA). (See TOs Vote to File End-of-life Rules with FERC.)
Stakeholders challenging the filing asserted that the TOs do not have “exclusive filing rights” in regard to EOL projects and that PJM members maintain rights under the Operating Agreement to also make filings related to EOL projects. A competing, joint stakeholder proposal is still pending before FERC (ER20-2308). (See PJM Files EOL Proposal over TO Protest.)
“Given the specific facts and circumstances before us, we find that the planning activities addressed by the Attachment M-3 revisions filing are within the exclusive rights and responsibilities retained by the PJM TOs under the CTOA,” the commission said in its ruling. “Under the CTOA and the Tariff, the PJM TOs retain all rights that they have not specifically granted to PJM.”
TO Filing
The new rules will require TOs to have a formal process for EOL determinations and to identify potential EOL projects five years in advance. Projects that “overlap” with Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) violations will be included in a competitive window seeking regional solutions.
The existing provisions of Attachment M-3 provide only for the planning of supplemental projects. The TOs’ revisions “expand the applicability” of the attachment by requiring each TO to present its criteria for assessing whether a transmission facility needs to be replaced. It also allows for annual stakeholder input in the EOL process.
“Significantly, the proposed revisions provide for coordination of EOL needs with the PJM RTEP planning criteria needs,” FERC said in its order. “This provides PJM and stakeholders with increased opportunities to review and comment on EOL need transmission projects, and thus provides greater transparency.”
The TOs’ filing also said the revisions will “better coordinate the Transmission Owners’ end-of-useful-life asset-management activities with PJM’s planning to address RTEP planning criteria” by providing the RTO projected replacements up to five years in advance.
As far as asset-management projects cited in the filing, FERC found they “do not fit within the categories of projects the [TOs] have transferred to PJM” and do not fall under regional planning under the OA because they relate “solely to maintenance of existing facilities” and do not “expand” or “enhance” the PJM grid as required in the CTOA to transfer planning to the RTO.
“They are solely projects that maintain the existing infrastructure by repairing or replacing equipment,” the commission said. “These projects therefore fall within the category of rights not specifically granted to PJM and therefore reserved to the PJM TOs.”
Protests
Dozens of PJM stakeholders intervened in the TO filing, some raising concerns that the “majority” of transmission planning in the RTO is happening outside of the bounds of the RTEP process. FERC said the argument was beyond the scope of the proceeding.
Concerns were also raised that the proposed revisions could result in “a cost allocation that is not consistent with cost causation.” FERC said provisions of Schedule 12 of the PJM Tariff assign cost responsibility for required transmission enhancements, but the revisions to Attachment M-3 include no revisions to Schedule 12 and propose no cost allocation changes.
Stakeholders, including American Municipal Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, argued that the commission should reject the TOs’ filing and accept the joint stakeholder proposal passed by 69% of the Members Committee on June 18 despite the RTO’s opposition. FERC ruled that the joint stakeholder proposal was not before the commission in this proceeding and “does not alter the FPA Section 205 filing rights of the PJM TOs.”
“We find the PJM TOs’ Attachment M-3 revisions filing just and reasonable and need not determine whether proposed alternatives are more or less reasonable,” the commission said. “And, again, in this instance, the alternatives mentioned here consist of a filing made in a different proceeding, not this proceeding.”
The joint stakeholder proposal would require more transparency and oversight by PJM. The TOs and PJM say it violates the RTO’s governing documents and commission precedent on the RTO’s and the TOs’ roles in the planning of supplemental projects — including EOL facilities — and asset-management projects.
Sharon Segner, vice president of LS Power, said it is “too early to tell” if the commission will reject the joint stakeholder proposal or if both the TO revisions and the stakeholder proposal will be accepted. Segner said FERC’s language in its order left open the possibility to both being accepted, with a decision by Aug. 31.
“As a policy matter, LS Power continues to fight for the value of the regional transmission planning proposition, and the FERC order from yesterday is an attack on the value of the regional transmission planning process,” Segner said.
