FERC Conditionally Accepts PJM's New Planning Scheme

Yesterday, FERC conditionally accepted PJM's new planning scheme.  However, it seems that FERC is also a bit suspicious about those mysterious "modeling assumptions and scenario planning analyses" that PJM wants to rely on to cook their RTEP determinations and has ordered a compliance filing.  Dance, PJM, dance!

"We find that PJM’s proposed revisions to its RTEP process that enable PJM to identify and evaluate potential transmission system needs through sensitivity studies, modeling assumption variations, and scenario planning analyses that will consider public policy, are reasonable. We, however, find persuasive protesters’ arguments claiming that PJM’s proposed revisions lack sufficient detail, and, therefore, accept PJM’s proposed revisions subject to a compliance filing, made within 30 days of this order. In the compliance filing, we direct PJM to submit tariff revisions that broadly clarify how sensitivity studies, modeling assumption variations, and scenario planning analyses will be utilized in its RTEP process."

FERC also rejected the arguments of certain states that inclusion of "public policy objectives" in planning criteria are vague and not a good idea:

"Various protesters argue that consideration of Public Policy Objectives is not clear and that the definition may bear upon PJM’s Order No. 1000 compliance. To the extent that protestors are concerned that the definition of Public Policy Objectives is unclear because it includes “initiatives that have not yet been codified into law” we note the following. First, the definition is clear that it is limited to those initiatives that “may have important impacts on long term planning considerations.” Second, we find that PJM’s revisions allow for stakeholders input into which initiatives should be considered by PJM in the planning process."

Oh, yeah, FERC, that's about as clear as mud.  So, which initiatives may have important impacts?  How are these initiatives different from initiatives that may not have important impacts?  There is no definition!  FAIL!

FERC also does the "do as I say and not as I do" thing again when talking about how its present decisions will affect Order No. 1000 compliance.  That's already not working out too well -- transmission owners are being told to use FERC's PJM cost allocation decision in the 7th Circuit remand as a basis for O1000 compliance, despite the Commission's advice to come up with a new hybrid method for O1000:

"PJM stated - and FERC agreed - that big projects provide a full spectrum of benefits in an RTO, such as avoiding cascading blackouts, reducing power loss, reducing congestion…and transmission users should share in the costs," Johnson said. "This is a preview of what you might well expect in a FERC Order No. 1000 world."

FERC must be looking forward to another judicial beatdown in federal court that's going to delay the new "national grid" transmission build out by years.  Works for me! :-)  Thanks, FERC!