By Christen Smith
PJM stakeholders struck a compromise late Tuesday on language that would expand upon how the RTO includes projects in its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan.
The deal came less than 48 hours before the Markets and Reliability Committee’s scheduled vote on the issue and could signal an end to eight months of debate over revising Manual 14B to stipulate when and how supplemental projects move in and out of the RTEP. (See Tensions Boil over on PJM’s Supplemental Projects.)
Sharon Segner, vice president of LS Power, told RTO Insider her company reached an agreement with American Municipal Power and PJM during a special Planning Committee session on Tuesday. The compromise language “memorializes the policy of supplemental project displacement in PJM Order 1000 windows,” she said.
Supplemental projects are those that PJM considers necessary to address local transmission owner reliability concerns that are not required for compliance with grid criteria governing system reliability, operational performance or economic efficiency.
It was unclear whether the deal would win the support of PJM TOs. But the RTO has authority to unilaterally adopt manual changes even in the face of stakeholder opposition.
Alex Stern, manager of transmission strategy and policy at Public Service Electric and Gas, said Wednesday he was “still digesting” the language.
Segner said only, “I’m hopeful that there will be resolution in a reasonable period of time.”
Specifically, the revisions detail how PJM would alter the RTEP after siting authorities deny a permit for a supplemental project. The RTO has argued that it lacks the authority to remove such projects from the planning model and noted that a project can languish for years of litigation before a TO wins approval or abandons it. (See PJM Rebuffs Stakeholders on Supplemental Projects.)
The revisions state that if the denied application represents a final regulatory order, the developer must notify PJM. Staff would then review the “impacts associated with removing the project from the RTEP or continuing to include such project in light of such final regulatory order” and present its findings to the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee.
“A project denied siting authority in a final regulatory order by the relevant regulatory siting authority will generally be removed from the RTEP base case as determined by PJM after discussion with the relevant transmission owner(s) or designated entity and vetting with stakeholders at the TEAC,” according to the proposed language.
The agreed-upon language also states “a project will generally not remain in the RTEP base case during the duration of a court appellate action.” PJM would submit decisions about removing baseline upgrades from the RTEP to its Board of Managers, while “decisions to remove a supplemental project from the RTEP base case will be provided to the applicable transmission owner. In those circumstances in which PJM determines the need to deviate from this guidance, PJM will discuss such decisions with the TEAC.”
PJM does not approve supplemental projects but does study them to ensure they won’t harm reliability. However, the new manual revisions clarify that the RTO would notify stakeholders when existing baseline projects could better solve the regional need that prompted a supplemental project proposal.
If a TO agrees with PJM’s assessment, the supplemental project will be withdrawn. If a TO disagrees, however, it must present documentation to the TEAC justifying its continued inclusion in the RTEP. Staff also added a paragraph clarifying that “any disputes arising under Attachment M-3, including any substantive and procedural disputes arising from the transmission planning process, may be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in Schedule 5 of the Operating Agreement.”
PJM had planned to present an older set of manual revisions from an Aug. 14 PC meeting to the MRC on Thursday that LS Power would have accepted as a friendly amendment to its main motion — a proposal that dates as far back as January and has been at the center of PC discussions ever since. AMP’s scheduled amendments to the main motion have also been scrapped, Segner confirmed.
Seventy-five percent of 139 participating member companies voted in favor of an Aug. 14 draft, according to a poll PJM circulated last week.
PJM spokesperson Susan Buehler said the compromise proposal represents a collaboration among stakeholders that “balanced the interests and concerns raised by all parties during its development.”
“Our priority is to ensure that the manual faithfully documents PJM’s current planning processes, integrates new processes and procedures consistent with recent regulatory orders/compliance directives, and provides a platform for the future that incorporates stakeholder desires, duties and future direction,” she said in a statement.
Greg Poulos, executive director of the Consumer Advocates of the PJM States, said the latest revision will likely delay a vote on Operating Agreement language sponsored by the D.C. Office of the People’s Counsel.
The proposed language would prevent PJM from rejecting endorsed rule changes without any recourse for disgruntled members, as it did in January with stakeholder-endorsed transparency language that the RTO found inconsistent with FERC rulings.