ER26-3380-000 · 2026-08-21 · Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate

Protest of the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate to PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s Reliability Backstop Procurement proposal

Read topic-matched comments in ER26-3380

Topics in the text: Cost allocation · Registry access · 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: Registry access

ER26-3380-000 PROTEST OF THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF CONSUMER ADVOCATE RE: RELIABILITY BACKSTOP PROCUREMENT TO ADDRESS RESOURCE ADEQUACY CONCERNS STEMMING FROM NEW LOAD ADJUSTMENTS August 21, 2026 i
Read this passage Filed comments: Registry access

Table of Contents

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

Table of Contents I.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

IV. FERC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction to Determine PLC and NSPL Value

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

IV.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

A. PJM’s proposal to have states determine the RBO methods for addressing cost

printed heading

PJM’s proposal to have states determine the RBO methods for addressing cost allocation of RBP costs is unjust and unreasonable because it presents a jurisdictional problem that FERC must address. ............................................................................................ 14
Read this passage

B. There is time to get cost allocation right – by the time cost allocation comes due for

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

B.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

D. FERC should adopt Option 1 by affirming its exclusive jurisdiction over RBO

printed heading

D.
Read this passage

I. Introduction

printed heading

I.
Read this passage

Introduction

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

The PA OCA represents the interests of Pennsylvania utility consumers or ratepayers before FERC.2 “Ratepayers” refers to the millions of retail end users that are served by the PJM grid.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

II. Executive Summary

printed heading

II.
Read this passage

Executive Summary

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

Despite FERC’s longstanding exercise of authority over PLC and NSPL value determinations, PJM proposes in its RBP filing to address cost allocation of RBP obligations through “state and/or [state utility commission]- determined allocation of RBP UCAP MW to LSEs within each zone/area.” PJM defines…
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

III. Summary of Cost Allocation Portion of PJM’s Tariff Filing

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

Summary of Cost Allocation Portion of PJM’s Tariff Filing In its filing, PJM proposes that the states or state utility commissions (PJM refers to state utility commissions as the “Relevant Electric Retail Regulatory Authority” or “RERRA”)3 determine allocation of cleared RBP unforced capacity…
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

IV. FERC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction to Determine PLC and NSPL Value Methodologies

printed heading

Each EDC in PJM must then allocate a share of its PJM-assigned peak load to each customer on its system and aggregate these peak loads to the LSE level.
Read this passage

A. NSPL Determinations for Transmission Costs Allocations to LSEs

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

Corp.,11 FERC found that it has jurisdiction over determining NSPL methods and, ultimately, the NSPL values assigned to individual retail customers for purposes of PJM allocating transmission costs to LSEs, as follows: As an initial matter, we find that the Commission has jurisdiction over the…
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

B. PLC Determinations for Capacity Cost Allocations to LSEs

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

Each EDC in PJM must then allocate a share of its PJM-assigned peak load to each customer on its system and aggregate these 21 See 2020 Amtrak, 171 FERC ¶ 61,237, at P 34 (2020) (noting that “many transmission owners have filed their methodologies for determining both capacity and [NSPL]…
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

V. Argument

printed heading

V.
Read this passage

A. PJM’s proposal to have states determine the RBO methods for addressing cost

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

PJM’s proposal to have states determine the RBO methods for addressing cost allocation of RBP costs is unjust and unreasonable because it presents a jurisdictional problem that FERC must address.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

B. There is time to get cost allocation right – by the time cost allocation comes

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

There is time to get cost allocation right – by the time cost allocation comes due for the first Delivery Year in which RBP Resources are expected to be in service (i.e., 2028/2029).
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

C. Potential Relief Options

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

Importantly, if FERC decides that the RBO value methodology used by PJM for RBP cost allocation is distinguishable from the PLC/NSPL value methodologies used for capacity/transmission cost allocation, FERC must expressly declare that states have jurisdiction over the RBO methods.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

D. FERC should adopt Option 1 by affirming its exclusive jurisdiction over RBO

printed heading · Topic match: Retail and wholesale authority

Comm’n 2020), https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1687575.docx. 45 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 141 FERC ¶ 61,009, at P 1 (2012); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 144 FERC ¶ 63,011, at P 24 (2013) (“[t]he primary issue underlying the Partial Settlement [was] whether Attachments M-1 and M-2 are just and…
Read this passage

VI. Conclusion

printed heading

VI.
Read this passage

Conclusion

printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation

As compared to Figure 1 and Figure 2 – where assignment of MWs is subject to federal jurisdiction per Amtrak v PPL – PJM now proposes to have states establish this method.
Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

printed heading · Topic match: Registry access

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; August 21, 2026. /s/ Josiah Harmar Josiah Harmar Assistant Consumer Advocate PA Attorney ID # 338426 JHarmar@paoca.org
Read this passage Filed comments: Registry access