FERC Filings
MOTION TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME, REQUEST FOR REHEARING, AND MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY PENDING REHEARING OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY ASSOCIATION re: PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING, AND REQUEST FOR LIMITED STAY PENDING REHEARING
A. PJM Inappropriately Included Broad and Substantial Changes to the MMP in a “Compliance Filing,” and Such Changes Were Not Properly Described in the Relevant Notice of Filing
The Commission has erred in this case by incorrectly accepting PJM’s January Filing as a compliance filing. In the May 15th Order, the Commission describes the January Filing as:
a compliance filing by [PJM] in response to the Commission’s directive to place into its tariff new procedures governing the reporting of transmission outages and new oversight measures regarding the rating of transmission facilities, and information sought by PJM’s [MMU].
PJM’s January Filing, however, went far beyond mere compliance by making substantive policy and procedural changes to MMU reporting mechanisms. Rather than complying with the clear and limited mandate in FERC’s December 20th Order, PJM used its January Filing, without the benefit of stakeholder discussion or input, to make broad and sweeping changes to Sections VI(B)(1)&(2) of the MMP that would apply to all parties under all circumstances, not just transmission outages, transmission rating and affiliates of transmission providers as intended by the Commission in its December 20th Order.
This kind of “policy creep” in an ISO should not occur in compliance filings, but rather in the stakeholder process where the various issues can be discussed. By accepting the PJM filing in a compliance filing, the Commission is breaking the seal on policy concerns in a purely procedural proceeding. Because of the multi-layered and voluminous filings that are and will be involved in the development of RTOs, ISOs and a seamless, interregional marketplace, the Commission must ensure that matters of policy are properly noticed, vetted and considered by all relevant and interested parties. The inviolability of this process is vital to the reasoned policy development that will shape the nation’s RTOs.
In the instance of the PJM January Filing, PJM improperly included issues of substance rather than procedure. This error was then exacerbated by PJM’s incomplete notice of the filing, adopted by the Commission, as a compliance matter rather than a substantive filing that requires input by stakeholders and intervenors. As discussed above, the January Filing extends information requirements beyond transmission owners and affiliates to all market participants, and beyond information on transmission outages and ratings to all information requested. There is also a shift of burden for the justification of information requests from PJM, the requestor, to the request recipient.
In accepting these substantial revisions to the MMP in a so-called compliance filing, the Commission erroneously states in the May 15th Order that the December 20th Order permits PJM to make such revision. Nothing in the December 20th Order allows such. The Commission states, “PJM’s proposed language [revision to the MMP] falls within the ‘further requirements’ which our order permits PJM to impose if it considers them necessary to ensure timely and complete provision of necessary information.” This is an extreme and erroneous stretch of language. The Commission emphasizes the “further requirements” language, but utterly disregards the important limiting language that immediately follows that clause: “…further requirements would be necessary to ensure that transmission owners and their affiliates provide information to the MMU….” (emphasis added). A filing submitted truly in compliance with the December 20th Order would be limited in its application to the specific circumstances set forth in such order. The January Filing’s wholesale modification of the MMP was not a “compliance filing,” and the Commission should not have accepted it. Accordingly, the Commission should grant rehearing of the May 15th Order. Further, it should stay the portion of the May 15th Order which accepts the revisions to the MMP, pending rehearing and stakeholder discussions of the issues involved, such as confidentiality.
B. PJM’s Broad and Substantial Change to its MMP Was Submitted Without PJM Stakeholder Input or Effective Notification
The January Filing, which included substantive changes to the PJM MMP, was filed without input of any kind from PJM’s stakeholders, nor were the potential changes ever discussed with any stakeholder group. Further, the draft notice of filing that PJM attached to the January Filing, which the Commission issued without modification, did not provide any notice whatsoever of changes to the MMP. PJM’s failure to consult with, or at least provide notice to, its stakeholders before making such a major modification to its MMP with widespread impact to all PJM members, is inexcusable and not appropriate for an organization like PJM that must rely on stakeholder input as it administers the transmission grid and large market.
Needless to say, PJM’s stakeholders and interested parties were unfairly and unpleasantly surprised by the broad and substantial change to the MMP. This exclusionary approach is certainly contrary to the open and participatory format within RTOs that the Commission has long supported. Accordingly, the Commission should grant rehearing of the May 15th Order, and it should stay the portion of the May 15th Order accepting the revisions to the MMP pending rehearing.