The Maryland Office of People's Counsel, et al. submit Request for Rehearing of the 06/18/2026 Order
Read topic-matched comments in EL26-67
Topics in the text: Cost allocation · Filing procedure · Retail and wholesale authority
Responses and related views
No section-specific public response is linked for this document.
Source sections
Printed headings where available; page ranges otherwise. Excerpts below are selected from the text by keyword.
Opening text
opening text · Topic match: Cost allocation
We respectfully request rehearing on the Commission’s finding that it “must act to address the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers” but not actual cost shifts among transmission customers that are guaranteed by the PJM Tariff.3 We agree with the Commission that, if implemented…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
I. Statement of Issues and Specifications of Error
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
To the extent the Order’s findings regarding state authority over retail cost allocation constitute final determinations, the Commission erred by finding that transparency will enable state regulators to sub-allocate Network Upgrade costs to retail customers “as they see fit,” without considering…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
II. Illustration: The PJM transmission tariff spreads Network Upgrade
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
Because our requests for rehearing are about the PJM Tariff, we illustrate how the tariff operates with a hypothetical about Network Upgrade costs.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
III. Requests for Rehearing
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
Requests for RehearingRead this passage
A. By failing to remedy a transmission tariff that facilitates systemic and
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
FERC, 756 F.3d 556, 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2014). 29 Order at P 68 (“The Commission has a duty to address the risk of cost shifting among transmission customers that may result in unjust and unreasonable transmission rates.”); id. (“To fulfill its responsibility to ensure that transmission rates are…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
B. The Commission failed to rationally connect Network Upgrade cost
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
Pennsylvania EDCs and their affiliated transmission companies cannot implement cost allocation methodologies that conflict with FERC-approved tariffs and orders.”) (EAP’s members include several PJM Transmission Owners). 23 Under the second model, a transmission owner recovers transmission charges…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
IV. Requests for Clarification
printed heading
Requests for ClarificationRead this passage
A. The Commission should clarify that a just and reasonable
printed heading
The Commission should clarify that a just and reasonable cost-recovery agreement requires the Eligible Customer to pay the full incremental cost of Network Upgrades needed to accommodate the large load.Read this passage
B. The Commission should clarify that transmission owners must
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
The Commission should clarify that transmission owners must immediately credit revenue received under cost-recovery agreements to the other transmission customers in the zone.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
CONCLUSION
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
CONCLUSION The Order correctly finds that the PJM Tariff shifts the costs of Network Upgrades for large loads to transmission customers that neither caused nor benefit from them.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
Certificate of Service
printed heading
Sussler Philip L.Read this passage