By Michael Brooks

PJM’s Independent Market Monitor has called on FERC to settle a dispute between PJM and a transmission developer, saying the RTO’s unwillingness to release relevant files is unfair to the developer and impeding the Monitor’s own attempts at resolution (EL15-79).

TransSource — not to be confused with Transource Energy, a partnership of American Electric Power and Great Plains Energy — asked FERC in June to order PJM to provide the company with data showing how the RTO calculated network upgrade costs in its system impact studies for several of its auction revenue rights requests. (See Transmission Developer: PJM TOs Inflating Upgrade Costs for ARRs.)

PJM responded by asking FERC to dismiss the complaint. The RTO insisted it had provided TransSource with all the relevant data, and that the specific files that the company is requesting were not used in the cost calculations. These files, called PLS.CADD, are held by transmission owners and are “highly confidential” according to PJM.

The Market Monitor told FERC in an Aug. 6 filing that it “is concerned that the primary defense raised by PJM is that the complainant does not have the facts sufficient to support its case, and that the claims amount to overly broad generalizations, when the complainant’s case is primarily based on TransSource’s claims that they have not been provided adequate facts to assess the determination to increase assigned costs to TransSource.”

TransSource maintains that under the PJM Tariff and the Federal Power Act, it has a right to the PLS.CADD files. While the Monitor did not comment on specific Tariff or legal provisions, it agreed that TransSource should have access to the files.

“The complaint does not request substantive relief, but only that what appear to be reasonable requests for additional information be answered before TransSource is required to make financial commitments that TransSource is not be able to make unless and until those question are answered,” the Monitor said. It also said the fact that the files are held by the TOs, and not PJM, “is a major obstacle to a resolution.”

The Monitor said it would prefer an administrative law judge to handle hearing or settlement proceedings. In a filing last week, TransSource said it supported this idea.

TransSource “persists in making overly broad and vague accusations such as PJM ‘refused’ to provide any data,” PJM said. “Such accusations deny the commission a true and accurate picture as to exactly what data and assumptions TransSource was denied.” PJM also said that it had informed the company that if PLS.CADD files had been used in the studies, then the RTO would have ordered their release.

PJM also argued that the company lacked evidence for its other accusations, including that transmission owners Public Service Electric and Gas, PPL, Jersey Central Power & Light and Delmarva Power & Light intentionally inflated the costs of the network upgrades to make it impossible for TransSource to secure funding for them.