Request for Rehearing of FirstEnergy Service Company
Read topic-matched comments in ER26-3380
Topics in the text: Filing procedure · Credit and exit · Cost allocation
What the document says
PDF p. 17
FirstEnergy and NOVEC ask FERC to reject the procurement and replace it.
the Commission should reject PJM's RBP filing, proceed under the Section 206 proceeding it has instituted in Docket No. EL26-108-000, and establish settlement procedures. PDF p. 17
PDF p. 8
The levelized average-price framework lets sellers front-load payments into early delivery years.
FirstEnergy explained that the predictable consequence of this flexibility is that sellers will front-load their costs into the initial years of their contracts. PDF p. 8
PDF p. 9
The levelized average-price framework lets sellers front-load payments into early delivery years.
The Commission should grant rehearing and reject the levelized framework or, in the alternative, require that RBP offers be priced on a straight-line, fixed-value basis or subject to an annual price cap. PDF p. 9Filed comments: Filing procedure
PDF p. 11
Selection should favor firm, dispatchable resources, not just least cost.
The Commission should grant rehearing and require PJM to demonstrate that the RBP framework appropriately prioritizes firm and dependable capacity resources. PDF p. 11Filed comments: Filing procedure
PDF p. 10
Selection should favor firm, dispatchable resources, not just least cost.
FirstEnergy further showed that PJM's selection process is designed to select the PDF p. 10
PDF p. 13
Shortfall charges end at commercial operation, leaving customers unprotected for the rest of 15 years.
offers no explanation of what protects customers after commercial operation, when shortfall charges no longer apply. PDF p. 13
PDF p. 14
LSE collateral of $1.5 million per RBP MW is far above seller collateral.
Customers are asked to post collateral of $1.5 million per committed RBP MW to protect suppliers for up to fifteen years PDF p. 14Filed comments: Credit and exit
PDF p. 15
Demand response should need binding commitments, not just a plan for enabling equipment.
FirstEnergy therefore asked the Commission to require PJM to clarify that eligible demand response resources must be supported by binding contractual commitments. PDF p. 15
PDF p. 16
Demand response should need binding commitments, not just a plan for enabling equipment.
A criterion that can be satisfied by a mere plan for the infrastructure necessary to deliver the offered load reduction does not serve that purpose PDF p. 16
PDF p. 3
TOs and FirstEnergy seek rehearing mainly to preserve issues while PJM prepares a replacement filing.
rehearing is still warranted to ensure these issues are preserved and appropriately decided in the context of any new filing made by PJM. PDF p. 3Filed comments: Filing procedure
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: Filing procedure
ER26-3380-000 (filed Aug. 21, 2026) ("FirstEnergy Protest"). 4 September 29 Order at P 23 ("Aside from the three issues discussed directly below, we find that the other aspects of PJM's RBP proposal are just and reasonable, as discussed in this order."). 5 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a)-(b); Constellation…Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
I. BACKGROUND
printed heading
I.Read this passage
BACKGROUND
printed heading · Topic match: Credit and exit
FERC following the paper hearing,20 and repeatedly encouraged PJM to submit a new FPA Section 205 filing "without delay," noting that the Commission would likely hold the paper hearing in abeyance if PJM did so within thirty days.21 On October 13, 2026, PJM filed a motion to hold the paper hearing…Read this passage Filed comments: Credit and exit
II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR
printed heading
STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR The following Statement of Issues and Specifications of Error is provided pursuant to Rule 713(c)(1) and Rule 713(c)(2), 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(c)(1)-(2).Read this passage
A. The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious, fails to engage in reasoned
printed heading
The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious, fails to engage in reasoned decision-making, and is unsupported by substantial evidence because it accepts PJM's levelized, MW-weighted average maximum willingness to pay $555/MW- day without responding to FirstEnergy's showing that the framework…Read this passage
B. The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious, fails to engage in reasoned
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
Cir. 1993) ("Western Resources")). 21 Id. at PP 3, 24, 28, 158, 160. 22 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Motion for Abeyance of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Docket Nos.Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
C. The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious, fails to engage in reasoned
printed heading · Topic match: Credit and exit
The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious, fails to engage in reasoned decision-making, and is unsupported by substantial evidence because it finds PJM's RBP UCAP MW shortfall charges and seller collateral requirements just and reasonable without addressing FirstEnergy's showing that those…Read this passage Filed comments: Credit and exit
D. The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious and fails to engage in reasoned
printed heading
The September 29 Order is arbitrary and capricious and fails to engage in reasoned decision-making because it finds PJM's gating criteria for Demand Resources and DER Capacity Aggregation Resources just and reasonable without resolving the ambiguity FirstEnergy identified—that the criteria may be…Read this passage
III. ARGUMENT
printed heading
III.Read this passage
A. The Commission Erred in Accepting PJM's Levelized Average-Price
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
Intervenors identified this very risk, noting that ratepayers could pay more than $555/MW-day if any resource fails to materialize or ceases operation prior to the end of the RBP term.32 The September 29 Order does not address it.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
B. The Commission Erred in Finding PJM's Resource Eligibility and Selection
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
The resources 38 Id. at P 77. 39 Id. at P 66 n.96 (citing FirstEnergy Protest at 15-17). 40 Id. at PP 36, 49. 41 See FirstEnergy Protest at 16-17. 12 procured, and paid for by ratepayers, must meet these needs.Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
C. The Commission Erred in Finding PJM's Supplier Performance and Credit
printed heading · Topic match: Credit and exit
RBP UCAP MW shortfall charges will end."47 Likewise, seller collateral reflects only three years of shortfall charges and is returned once the resource no longer gives rise to credit exposure.48 The September 29 Order finds that seller collateral requirement just and reasonable because it reduces…Read this passage Filed comments: Credit and exit
D. The Commission Erred in Accepting PJM's Demand Response Gating
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
The Commission should grant rehearing or, in the alternative, clarify that Demand Resources and DER Capacity Aggregation Resources must be supported by binding contractual commitments to provide the 64 Id. at PP 76, 59. 65 Id. at P 59 (quoting Proposed Tariff, Attachment DD, § 18.5(f)(i)(11)). 66…Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
IV. CONCLUSION
printed heading
IV.Read this passage
CONCLUSION
printed heading · Topic match: Credit and exit
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, FirstEnergy respectfully requests that the Commission grant rehearing of the September 29 Order on the issues specified above.Read this passage Filed comments: Credit and exit
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
printed heading
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 29th day of October, 2026. /s/ Nicholas J.Read this passage