Read topic-matched comments in ER26-3515
Topics in the text: Reliability and curtailment · Registry access · Cost allocation
Load forecasting · PDF pp. 30–48
PJM reported that 82% of 66 poll respondents supported a registration requirement. That was a poll about the registry, not support for every proposed curtailment rule.
82% of the 66 stakeholder respondents agreed that a Large Load registration requirement is necessary PDF p. 36Filed comments: Registry access
Resource adequacy · PDF pp. 49–79
PJM asked to require a load-serving entity to bring new capacity for an eligible new large customer or face reductions. FERC rejected this part of the proposal in October.
Requirement for New Large Loads to bring capacity or be subject to load reductions PDF p. 55
Curtailment · PDF pp. 80–103
PJM proposed adding reductions of eligible large loads to its emergency sequence. It emphasized that dispatchers still need discretion over the order of actions as conditions change.
the rapidness of system events influences the timing and order of actions necessary to maintain system reliability PDF p. 87
Customer compensation · PDF pp. 104–120
The August proposal permitted a retail rate from zero to half the non-performance charge rate. This was part of the proposed service; the registry that survived in October does not create that payment.
a retail rate between 50% of the Non-Performance Charge Rate and zero dollars PDF p. 112Filed comments: Retail and wholesale authority
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (New Jersey) · Direct response
Pallone wanted as much of the registry made public as possible to improve demand forecasts. FERC records his request separately from the states’ requests for protected access. He spoke as a member of Congress.
PDF p. 18, ¶39Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · Direct response
Pennsylvania’s commission supported creating a registry but wanted state commissions to have access and wanted PJM to record curtailments. Its comments addressed the proposal before FERC rejected interim curtailment service.
PDF p. 8, section II, Large Load RegistryOrganization of PJM States · Direct response
OPSI wanted meaningful state access to the registry to set retail curtailment rules and allocate costs. Its September comments distinguish the registry, which it supported, from the compensation mechanism it challenged.
PDF p. 7, section I.DEquinix and PJM industrial customers · Direct response
Equinix wanted customers notified and allowed to verify or correct the information PJM would use. Industrial customers also requested an appeal and safeguards for commercial data.
PDF p. 17, ¶38Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative · Direct response
The cooperative asked who bears liability when a distributor reports information obtained from another party, how it could recover its compliance costs, and whether the reporting manual would be filed for review.
PDF pp. 16–17, ¶37Independent Market Monitor for PJM · Direct response
The market monitor distinguished enrollment data from real-time telemetry. It said PJM had not shown how it would measure an actual reduction in the proposed interim service.
PDF p. 18, ¶40Data Center Coalition · Direct response
The coalition supported letting customers bring their own generation but opposed the proposed interim service. It argued that PJM’s region-wide mandatory curtailment rule would displace state retail decisions.
PDF pp. 2–4Joint Consumer Advocates · Direct response
The advocates saw value in a choice between contributing new capacity and curtailing with appropriate state action. With suitable eligibility rules, they argued, this mechanism would make a separate backstop procurement redundant.
PDF pp. 2–3, 40Organization of PJM States, recorded member positions · Direct response
Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia commissions supported OPSI’s comments. Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia commissions abstained. The vote covered the whole filing: OPSI supported a registry but wanted clarification or separate treatment of curtailment compensation.
PDF pp. 1, 7–10, footnote 2 and sections I.D–IIIGoogle · Direct response
FERC records Google’s request to accept the registry on its own. Google argued that getting better large-load data need not depend on approval of PJM’s wider curtailment and compensation design.
PDF p. 16, ¶36, citing Google protest pp. 3, 18Printed headings where available; page ranges otherwise. Open a heading to read the original passage.