Topics in the text: Registry access · Connecting load and generation · Reliability and curtailment
Registry scope · PDF pp. 1–2
Transmittal: what survived the October order
PJM asks for an October 12 effective date for the definition and registry. It strips out the two fields that would have recorded a customer's new capacity and allocated backstop megawatts. The filing does not revive the rejected curtailment service.
the amount of BYONC brought by a particular Large Load and the allocated RBP UCAP MW quantity PDF p. 2
A registry cannot tell an operator what just tripped
Independent Market Monitor for PJM · Related public statement
The market monitor distinguished enrollment data from real-time telemetry. It said PJM had not shown how it would measure an actual reduction in the proposed interim service.
PDF p. 18, ¶40States supported the registry while challenging a different payment rule
Organization of PJM States · Related public statement
OPSI supported the registry because states need verified data to allocate retail costs and decide how to curtail load. Its separate objection concerned automatically compensating curtailed projects. Three commissions abstained on the combined comments; that is not a vote against the registry.
PDF pp. 1, 7–10, footnote 2 and sections I.D–IIIA separate registry was one remedy Google had sought
Google · Related public statement
In the original proceeding Google argued that FERC could accept the registry without accepting the remaining interim-service terms. This predates PJM’s compliance filing implementing that separation.
PDF p. 16, ¶36, citing Google protest pp. 3, 18 Filed comments: Registry accessRegistry scope · PDF pp. 6–65
Attachment A: how to read the marked text
The redlines show where PJM placed the surviving definition and reporting rules. Use the clean copy starting on PDF page 66 to read the resulting language; the reproduced definitions surrounding the edits are not all new rules.
all affiliated load facilities within a one-mile radius will be considered a single electrical site PDF p. 49
Registry reporting · PDF pp. 87–90
Attachment DD-4: who keeps the registry
PJM maintains the registry under Schedule 11. Electric distributors coordinate with PJM and supply information they consider appropriate, including applicable retail tariffs and contracts. Section I is reserved.
any information or data the Electric Distributor believes appropriate to facilitate an accurate Large Load Registry PDF p. 89
States need usable records to set retail rules
Organization of PJM States · Related public statement
OPSI wanted meaningful state access to the registry to set retail curtailment rules and allocate costs. Its September comments distinguish the registry, which it supported, from the compensation mechanism it challenged.
PDF p. 7, section I.D Filed comments: Registry accessRegistry scope · PDF pp. 91–122
RAA Article 1: what counts as one site
The threshold is 50 MW of cumulative peak demand at one electrical site, even behind several interconnection points. Affiliated load facilities within a one-mile radius count as one site under the stated configurations.
a cumulative peak load of 50 megawatts or greater at a single electrical site behind one or more points of interconnection PDF p. 109
Registry reporting · PDF pp. 123–124
Schedule 11.B.1(a): what must be reported
Entities bound by the Operating Agreement must submit, or arrange submission of, data about each large load they serve. Fields include location, dates for each load increment, peak MW and ramp schedule, telemetry, and backup generation with fuel and permit limits.
Backup generation (MW), including fuel type and relevant permitting limitations PDF p. 124
Pennsylvania asks to see curtailment data
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · Related public statement
Pennsylvania’s commission supported creating a registry but wanted state commissions to have access and wanted PJM to record curtailments. Its comments addressed the proposal before FERC rejected interim curtailment service.
PDF p. 8, section II, Large Load RegistryWho answers for a supplier’s data?
Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative · Related public statement
The cooperative asked who bears liability when a distributor reports information obtained from another party, how it could recover its compliance costs, and whether the reporting manual would be filed for review.
PDF pp. 16–17, ¶37Registry access · PDF p. 124
Schedule 11.B.1(b)–(d): validation and access
PJM may check the data with the distributor, transmission owner or customer. The text names regulators, system participants and the market monitor as possible recipients under safeguards. It does not explicitly list state consumer advocate offices.
Information maintained in the Large Load registry may be available to Authorized Commissions PDF p. 124
Ohio wants a seat for consumer advocates
Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel · Related public statement
Ohio’s consumer advocate asked FERC to give state consumer offices the same confidential access available to commissions. Customers need an advocate who can test costs and curtailment decisions, it argued. Its November 9 request challenges the October order. It does not ask PJM to publish customer records.
PDF pp. 14, 18–19Give customers a chance to correct errors
Equinix and PJM industrial customers · Related public statement
Equinix wanted customers notified and allowed to verify or correct the information PJM would use. Industrial customers also requested an appeal and safeguards for commercial data.
PDF p. 17, ¶38 Filed comments: Registry accessRegistry reporting · PDF pp. 124–125
Schedule 11.B.2: deadlines and changes of supplier
For loads in service before June 1, 2027, the serving or contracted entity must report by March 1, 2027. For loads entering service on or after June 1, it must report before startup. It must promptly report later changes, including transfer of the right to serve the load.
before the in-service date of the Large Load PDF p. 125
Printed headings where available; page ranges otherwise. Open a heading to read the original passage.