By Rory D. Sweeney

The fight between PJM transmission owners (TOs) and customers over supplemental projects isn’t over yet, despite a FERC order approving the RTO’s plan.

Both sides made filings at FERC this week in the docket determining how oversight of the local, TO-driven projects is handled (ER17-179).

PJM and its TOs said in a compliance filing Monday that they are willing to revise their original proposal to provide stakeholders more time to examine the reasons why a TO decides to pursue a supplemental project, but the RTO said many other deadlines can’t be adjusted because they must fit within the timing of its current processes. (See PJM, TOs Propose FERC Order 890 Compliance Plan.) The projects include transmission expansions or enhancements not required for compliance with regional or national reliability, operational performance, or economic criteria.

A coalition of customers calling themselves “the load group” requested rehearing of the order, arguing that it still doesn’t hold TOs accountable for their obligations under FERC Order 890. They took issue with FERC’s approval of TO-proposed language to delineate the supplemental planning process and move it from the PJM Operating Agreement (OA) — which requires a super-majority endorsement from PJM stakeholders to make changes — to a new Attachment M-3 of the Tariff. The TOs have exclusive filing rights under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to make changes to the Tariff; other stakeholders would need the PJM Board of Managers to file a complaint under Section 206. (See FERC Orders New Rules for Supplemental Tx Projects in PJM.)

Additionally, PJM’s Independent Market Monitor (IMM) has asked to intervene in the docket, wading into a clash the IMM has largely stayed out of since it was touched off with a 2015 technical conference and subsequent FERC show-cause order in 2016 (EL16-71).

Compliance Filing

PJM submitted proposed Tariff and OA revisions to address FERC’s determination that the TOs were failing to provide stakeholders with adequate notification, information, and opportunities to engage in discussions over supplementals. While PJM includes the projects in its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) to allow staff to identify possible reliability or operational performance issues, they are not subject to staff oversight or approval.

TOs had proposed there be a minimum of 25 days between meetings covering 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.

In response to stakeholder feedback, PJM and the TOs agreed to extend to 20 days the period before the initial assumptions meeting.

“While the [TOs] are sensitive to the desire of some stakeholders for additional time between meetings and for more time to review the materials presented for discussion at the meetings, they determined that, in most cases, longer minimum time periods would compromise their ability to coordinate the supplemental project planning process with PJM’s planning of baseline projects [that address regional or national criteria violations] for inclusion in the [Regional Transmission Expansion Plan],” the filing said. “PJM apprised the [TOs] that minimum periods between supplemental project planning meetings of more than 28 days would have the potential to cause problems by preventing effective coordination with meetings of the PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee.”

TOs said the deadline for feedback on a project’s first meeting about assumptions can be pushed back “without impeding the subsequent steps in the process.”

Rehearing Request

The load group’s request argues that Attachment M-3 doesn’t resolve Order 890 issues in the first place and that it’s inappropriate for PJM to add the attachment to the Tariff rather than the OA. It also took issue with the commission not requiring TOs to provide more information to stakeholders, such as the models and data necessary to replicate the analyses identifying the need for supplemental projects. FERC also should have subjected supplementals to the same obligation-to-build, milestone requirements and PJM impact analyses as RTEP baseline projects, the group said.

The group criticized FERC for what they said was allowing TOs “to disregard their obligation to respond to comments from stakeholders.”

“The commission is not free to ignore problems with a section 205 filing that a party identifies simply because that party proposed an alternative to particular filed terms and conditions,” the group wrote. “But that is precisely what the commission did in the order. … Given the PJM TOs’ track record in failing to meet their obligations under Order 890, the PJM TOs should be required to respond to stakeholder comments. Otherwise, stakeholders will have no way of knowing whether the TOs have honored their obligation to consider these comments. … The commission should ensure that any such process is robust and offers stakeholders recourse if their comments are ignored.”

The group includes American Municipal Power, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, the Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, the Illinois Citizens Utility Board, the Office of the People’s Counsel for the District of Columbia, and the Public Power Association of New Jersey.