Request for Rehearing to Protect Consumers from Excessive Transmission Rates by Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel
Read topic-matched comments in ER26-3380
Topics in the text: Reliability and curtailment · Filing procedure · Cost allocation
What the document says
PDF p. 22
FirstEnergy and NOVEC ask FERC to reject the procurement and replace it.
FERC should have rejected the RBP auction proposal and directed PJM to meet again with stakeholders to consider a model that would provide appropriate allocations of costs PDF p. 22
PDF p. 15
Pay-as-bid without market power screens lets sellers bid the cap, not cost.
There is nothing in that structure that will prevent sellers from just bidding at the $555/MW-day offer cap regardless of the sellers’ actual marginal costs. PDF p. 15
PDF p. 15
FERC abandoned its single-clearing-price precedent for capacity auctions without a reasoned explanation.
FERC also failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its departure from its long-held policy of requiring a single clearing price auction design for capacity markets. PDF p. 15
PDF p. 13
The $555/MW-day cap is borrowed from the BRA with no evidence it fits.
The fact that the accepted auction design will pay each seller whose offer clears the auction its offer bid price for a period of up to 15 years only encourages rather than discourages offers above competitive levels. PDF p. 13
PDF p. 19
Shortfall charges end at commercial operation, leaving customers unprotected for the rest of 15 years.
FERC never addressed the IMM’s concerns that there is nothing to protect consumers from shortfall in capacity that could occur in years four through fifteen. PDF p. 19
PDF p. 18
Shortfall charges end at commercial operation, leaving customers unprotected for the rest of 15 years.
FERC did not explain why the shortage penalty, set at 20% of the price bid by the seller times the cleared capacity, was appropriate. PDF p. 18
PDF p. 19
OCC: PJM's wording suggests consumers, not sellers, may end up paying the shortfall charges.
FERC also ignores that under PJM’s proposal, it is consumers who may pay the shortage penalties. PDF p. 19
PDF p. 21
OCC: RBP costs should fall on the data centers that caused the shortfall, not other consumers.
FERC never addressed OCC’s main concern that the RBP auction model is inappropriate, unjust and unreasonable because it does not target procurement and allocation PDF p. 21
PDF p. 23
OCC: RBP costs should fall on the data centers that caused the shortfall, not other consumers.
OCC demonstrated that data center demand increased capacity costs to other PJM customers by approximately $23.1 billion across the 2025/2026, 2026/2027, 2027/2028 Base Residual Auctions. PDF p. 23
PDF p. 25
OCC: RBP costs should fall on the data centers that caused the shortfall, not other consumers.
direct PJM to work with stakeholders to develop an RBP auction design that will properly allocate related costs to the cost causers PDF p. 25
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 and ) ER26-3380-001 REQUEST FOR REHEARING TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM EXCESSIVE TRANSMISSION RATES BY OFFICE OF THE OHIO CONSUMERS’ COUNSEL Maureen Willis Consumers’ Counsel Angela O/Brien Deputy Consumers’ Counsel Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel 65 East State Street, Suite 700…Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
Table of Contents
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
Table of Contents I.Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
A. FERC’s approval of the $555/MW-day seller offer cap and the
printed heading
A.Read this passage
B. FERC’s approval of the pay-as-bid clearing price mechanism
printed heading
B.Read this passage
C. FERC’s approval of the 20% shortage penalty for the RBP
printed heading
C.Read this passage
D. FERC’s approval of the RBP auction structure violates long-
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
ER26-3380-000 and ) ER26-3380-001 REQUEST FOR REHEARING TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM EXCESSIVE TRANSMISSION RATES BY OFFICE OF THE OHIO CONSUMERS’ COUNSELRead this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
I. INTRODUCTION
printed heading
I.Read this passage
INTRODUCTION
printed heading · Topic match: Reliability and curtailment
Pursuant to Section 313 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 825l, and Rule 713 of the FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.713, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (“OCC”) hereby requests rehearing of the September 29 Orders.Read this passage Filed comments: Reliability and curtailment
II. BACKGROUND
printed heading
II.Read this passage
BACKGROUND
printed heading · Topic match: Credit and exit
BACKGROUND FERC generally accepted (subject to refund and paper hearing) PJM’s proposal to establish the RBP, a one-time auction to procure 6,831 MW of new generating capacity and cure the capacity shortage that occurred in the Reliability Pricing Model (“RPM”) capacity base residual auction for…Read this passage Filed comments: Credit and exit
III. SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS ON REHEARING
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
FERC erred by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in approving the excessive $555/MW-day market seller offer cap and the pay-as-bid clearing mechanism design for the RBP auctions.Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
IV. LIST OF ISSUES ON REHEARING
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
Cir. 1984) (“Neighborhood TV Co.”) (the court must be 6 able to “discern a reasoned path from the facts and considerations before the [agency] to the decision it reached”) because the excessive offer cap in conjunction with the pay-as-bid clearing mechanism will not sufficiently constrain market…Read this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
V. REQUEST FOR REHEARING
printed heading · Topic match: Filing procedure
REQUEST FOR REHEARINGRead this passage Filed comments: Filing procedure
A. FERC’s approval of the $555/MW-day seller offer cap and the pay-as-bid clearing
printed heading · Topic match: Reliability and curtailment
ER26-3380- 000, available on the FERC e-library website as Accession Document No. 20260821-5317 (“IMM Protest”). 23 Id. 24 September 29 Order at P 74. 9 needs to expeditiously cure the capacity shortage and a high price cap will encourage new entrants.”25 FERC also notes that “in establishing the…Read this passage Filed comments: Reliability and curtailment
B. FERC’s approval of the pay-as-bid clearing price mechanism for the RBP auction is
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
This is inconsistent with Commissioner LaCerte’s guidance in his concurrence, directing that PJM, in preparing a revised filing, should “not deviate from the principles of ratepayer protection.”49 Commissioner David Rosner likewise directed that PJM and its stakeholders must return to market…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
C. FERC’s approval of the 20% shortage penalty for the RBP auction fails the test for
printed heading · Topic match: Reliability and curtailment
In contrast, FERC accepted a proposal to limit the proposed shortage penalty to only 1/5th of the capacity sell offer, which seriously undervalues the reliance load places on resource adequacy.Read this passage Filed comments: Reliability and curtailment
D. FERC’s approval of the RBP auction structure violates long-held judicial precedent
printed heading · Topic match: Cost allocation
She stated that “PJM must better ensure that the customers driving new costs bear appropriate responsibility for them and that existing customers are not left paying the bill instead.”70 Commissioner Rosner similarly stated that “[t]he limited set of guidance we give PJM to revise its proposal will…Read this passage Filed comments: Cost allocation
VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
printed heading
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, OCC respectfully requests that FERC reconsider its rulings in the September 29 Order, and afford consumers in Ohio and elsewhere in PJM the full protections of 74 Id. 75 See n.58 supra. 76 September 29 Order at P 23. 23 just, reasonable, and not unduly…Read this passage
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
printed heading
Dated in Washington, D.C., on this 29th day of October, 2026. /s/ Denise C.Read this passage