{"document":{"slug":"filing-20260821-5096","title":"Comments of the Organization of PJM States, Inc. in support of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s 07/31/2026 filing","issued":"2026-08-21","accession":"20260821-5096","docket":"ER26-3380-000","group":"PJM filings","filer":"Organization of PJM States, Inc.","kind":"comments","file":"sources/originals/20260821-5096_01.pdf","url":"https://opsi.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/OPSI-ER26-3380-000-RBP-Comments.pdf","sha256":"524dd309d58000166d48f2b237418d01420ac3ab034c2b2fc4e0ed5018fa46c8","pages":5,"tokens":1213,"emptyPages":[]},"pages":[{"page":1,"startToken":0,"endToken":299,"text":"1 \n \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA \nBEFORE THE \nFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION \n \nPJM Interconnection, L.L.C. \n) \nDocket No. ER26-3380-000 \n \nCOMMENTS OF THE \nORGANIZATION OF PJM STATES, INC. \n \nPursuant to the Commission’s August 3, 2026, Combined Notice of Filings, the \nOrganization of PJM States, Inc. (“OPSI”) respectfully files these comments in support of PJM’s \nJuly 31, 2026, filing proposing revisions to the Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff”) and the \nReliability Assurance Agreement Among Load Serving Entities (“RAA”) to establish a Reliability \nBackstop Procurement (“RBP”).1 OPSI supports the filing because the proposed revisions \nstrengthen regional resource adequacy while appropriately recognizing that implementation will \nrequire complementary state action to ensure that RBP costs are allocated to the appropriate retail \nloads.2 OPSI encourages the Commission to act expeditiously so that PJM can implement the RBP \nwithout disrupting the schedule for subsequent capacity auctions.  \nI. \nCOMMENTS \nThe unprecedented growth of large loads in the PJM region has created a significant \nregional resource adequacy planning challenge under the PJM centralized capacity procurement \nconstruct. The 2028/2029 Base Residual Auction (“BRA”) cleared 6,831 MW short of the PJM \nRegion Reliability Requirement, demonstrating that the region’s resource adequacy challenge \n \n1 PJM Interconnection LL.C., Reliability Backstop Procurement to Address Resource Adequacy Concerns Stemming \nfrom Large Loads, Docket No. ER26-3380-000 (July 31, 2026) (“Backstop Filing”). \n2 The following OPSI members support these comments: the Delaware Public Service Commission, Public Service \nCommission of the District of Columbia, Illinois Commerce Commission, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, \nKentucky Public Service Commission, Maryland Public Service Commission, Michigan Public Service Commission, \nNew Jersey Board of Public Utilities, North Carolina Utilities Commission, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, \nPennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Tennessee Public Utility Commission, and Virginia State Corporation \nCommission. The Public Service Commission of West Virginia does not support these comments."},{"page":2,"startToken":299,"endToken":663,"text":"2 \n \nrequires immediate action to preserve reliability.3 OPSI supports PJM’s proposal to implement a \nsupplemental procurement of new capacity equal to the shortfall observed in the BRA for the \n2028/2029 Delivery Year to serve large loads.4 PJM explains that the proposal is warranted because \nof the likelihood of a third consecutive short auction after shortfalls in the BRA for both the \n2027/2028 and 2028/2029 Delivery Years, the rapid growth in data center demand, the direction \nprovided in the National Energy Dominance Council (“NEDC”) / PJM Governors’ Principles, and \nthe Commission’s recognition of the need for action.5 OPSI hopes that this targeted intervention \nwill bolster regional resource adequacy by addressing the present-day capacity shortfall, which \nwould not have occurred but for large loads, while complementing the ongoing bilateral matching \nprocess. \nOPSI agrees with PJM that successful implementation of the RBP will require timely retail \nregulatory action that ensures existing retail loads are insulated from or share in the cost of the \nRBP only to the extent consistent with state retail ratemaking approvals. Under the Federal Power \nAct, the allocation of RBP costs to retail customers remains within the jurisdiction of retail \nregulators.6 Accordingly, several states have already begun implementing or considering retail \nratemaking reforms designed to more closely align the costs associated with new large-load \ndevelopment with those customers.7  \nPJM proposes to require that capacity used either to offset the RBP procurement target or \nto participate in the RBP qualify as “new” capacity.8 Specifically, qualifying offset capacity must \n \n3 Backstop Filing at 7–8. \n4 Id. at 7, 25–26. \n5 Id. at 27–28. \n6 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). Backstop Filing at 13–18, 104–08. \n7 See, e.g., Va. Acts ch. 1124, cl. 3 (2026) (S.B. 253), S.B. 253; Md. Code Ann., Pub. Utils. § 4-212; Ind. Code §§ 8-\n1-7.9-22 to -24; 2026 N.J. Laws ch. 32, § 1(b)(2)–(3), (d)(3). See also, Interconnection and Tariffs for Large Load \nCustomers, PA PUC Docket Number: M-2025-3054271 (Final Order entered May 12, 2026). \n8 Backstop Filing at 35–36, Attachment B, proposed Tariff, Attachment DD § 18.2(a)."},{"page":3,"startToken":663,"endToken":969,"text":"3 \n \nnot have previously supported a capacity commitment or been committed in a Fixed Resource \nRequirement Plan before commencement of the RBP and must satisfy the additional eligibility \ncriteria in proposed Tariff, Attachment DD, § 18.2(b). OPSI supports this approach because it helps \nensure that bilateral offsets and RBP procurements result in a genuine increase in regional capacity \nrather than simply shifting existing commitments among procurement mechanisms.  \nFurther, OPSI strongly supports the ongoing voluntary, iterative bilateral matching process \nthrough which new large loads may procure new capacity directly, with qualifying bilateral \narrangements reducing the RBP procurement target. This approach allows the costs of new \ncapacity to be assigned directly to the large loads creating the need for that capacity, reducing the \ncentralized procurement target and minimizing the risk of cost shifts to existing customers.9 The \nbilateral matching process also encourages market behavior where willing buyers contract with \nwilling sellers before resorting to centralized procurement, supporting the objective of addressing \nthe region’s resource adequacy shortfall while protecting existing customers.10  \nAdditionally, OPSI recommends that should an electric distribution company (“EDC”) / \nload serving entity (“LSE”) confirm before completion of the RBP that a specific amount of load \nin the relevant load forecast is no longer expected to materialize, PJM would revise its RBP target \nand load forecast. In describing its proposed Qualifying RBP Offset, PJM states that “new” load, \nfor purposes of the RBP, will be load that has an executed electric service agreement or \ntransmission service agreement, indicating that the load will be coming online in the 2027/2028 \nthrough the 2028/2029 Delivery Year.”11 It follows that if prospective large load withdraws from \nor otherwise terminates such agreements during the RBP window, it would not be considered \n \n9 Backstop Filing at 30–31, 39–40. \n10 Id. at 30. \n11 Id. at 35."},{"page":4,"startToken":969,"endToken":1143,"text":"4 \n \n“new” load, and that amount of load would be removed from the RBP target.12 PJM would also \nnecessarily revise the zonal allocations should certain new large load no longer be expected to \nmaterialize. OPSI views this approach as critical to protecting other customers.  \nII. \nCONCLUSION \nFor the foregoing reasons, OPSI respectfully encourages the Commission to accept PJM’s \nproposed Tariff and RAA revisions and permit PJM to implement the RBP while continuing to \npursue related reforms necessary to address the challenges posed by large-load growth. \n \nRespectfully Submitted,  \nBenjamin B. Sloan \nExecutive Director  \nOrganization of PJM States, Inc.  \n700 Barksdale Road, Suite 1 \nNewark, DE 19711  \n601-214-8481  \nben@opsi.us  \nEllen B. Egen \nDirector of Legal and Regulatory Affairs  \nOrganization of PJM States, Inc.  \n700 Barksdale Road, Suite 1 \nNewark, DE 19711  \n336-254-4915 \nellen@opsi.us  \nDated: August 21, 2026 \n \n \n \n12 OPSI recognizes that it is reasonable for PJM to require proof that revising the load forecast is appropriate, and \nOPSI understands a reasonable timeline for the proof submission would need to be established."},{"page":5,"startToken":1143,"endToken":1213,"text":"5 \n \nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \n \nI hereby certify that the foregoing has been served in accordance with 18 C.F.R. §385.2010 \nupon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this \nproceeding.  \n \n/s/ Benjamin B. Sloan_____  \nBenjamin B. Sloan \nExecutive Director  \nOrganization of PJM States, Inc.  \n700 Barksdale Road, Suite 1  \nNewark, DE 19711  \nTel: 601-214-8481  \n \n \nDated at Newark, Delaware this August 21, 2026."}],"sections":[{"p":1,"at":0,"title":"Opening text","method":"opening text","endPage":1,"endAt":1016,"startToken":0,"endToken":141},{"p":1,"at":1016,"title":"I. COMMENTS","method":"printed heading","endPage":4,"endAt":277,"startToken":141,"endToken":1014},{"p":4,"at":277,"title":"II. CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":4,"endAt":282,"startToken":1014,"endToken":1015},{"p":4,"at":282,"title":"CONCLUSION","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":5,"startToken":1015,"endToken":1144},{"p":5,"at":5,"title":"CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE","method":"printed heading","endPage":5,"endAt":455,"startToken":1144,"endToken":1213}]}