By Rory D. Sweeney

PJM and its transmission owners released a joint proposal last week to address FERC’s decision last month that the TOs are not in compliance with Order 890 (EL16-71, ER17-179).

The commission ruled that the TOs were failing to provide stakeholders with adequate notification, information and enough opportunities to engage on “supplemental” projects —transmission expansions or enhancements not required for compliance with reliability, operational performance or economic criteria. The projects are part of PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan but not subject to staff’s oversight and approval. (See FERC Orders New Rules for Supplemental Tx Projects in PJM.)

FERC ordered the TOs to define nine time-period minimums that were previously vague. In response, TOs have proposed there be a minimum of 25 days between meetings on the three parts of project planning: assumptions, needs and solutions. They also offered to post information to be discussed at that meeting 10 days ahead of time and allow 10 days after meetings to receive comments. Finally, they proposed a 10-day waiting period to consider written comments before incorporating their local transmission plans into the RTEP.

“The minimum time periods proposed are designed to complete the consideration of supplemental projects in time for the PJM board meeting to approve the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan in July and in subsequent RTEP approval cycles throughout the year,” PJM and the TOs wrote in the joint proposal.

PJM is giving stakeholders until March 9 to comment on the proposal. But some have already said they aren’t yet ready to sign off.

“We are carefully reviewing the filing with a view of the current planning process as well as the language in the order,” said American Municipal Power’s Ed Tatum, who has been a vocal critic of the process. “Absent discussion with the TOs, PJM and other stakeholders, it is difficult to determine if the time frames and process proposed will yield any improvement to the current process.”