So, PJM waited until close of business (on a Friday) to release the results.  How predictable of them.

Anyhow, the headlines are that a record amount of new generation, demand response and energy efficiency cleared.

"The RPM auction procured a record amount of new generation in one year, 4,900 megawatts (MW). In addition, capacity imported from west of PJM increased about 8 percent from last year to 4,335 MW.

In addition to new generation, most of it natural gas-fired, the capacity auction also procured 14,833 MW of demand response, a 5 percent increase over last year, and energy efficiency, a 12 percent increase. The amount of demand response was also a record for PJM, as well as for renewable generation. Solar increased to 56 MW of solar -- a 22 percent increase over last year - and wind increased to 796 MW - a 15 percent increase."

The RTO base price was $136 per MW, with a higher price of $167 per MW in the mid-Atlantic region (Atlantic City Electric, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Delmarva Power, Jersey Central Power and Light Company (JCP&L), Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed), PECO, Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec), Pepco, PPL Electric Utilities, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) and Rockland Electric Company). 

FirstEnergy's northern Ohio territory was the big loser though, with a price of $357 per MW.  That's extra money that goes in FE's pocket and out of yours.  Remember when AEP's Mikey Morris had a big tantrum last year about coal plant closures and pumped millions into lobbying to try to change the rules?  Yeah, well FE's Tony the Trickster kept his mouth and wallet shut and got busy scheming to make it work for his company.  FE announced the early closure of a whole bunch of their coal plants, mostly in Ohio.  The closure of so much generation in one area won FE some profitable RMR contracts to keep certain plants open, as well as an "order" from PJM to build $1B of transmission improvements made necessary by the closures, AND a capacity price more than double the RTO base price.  It's like winning the utility lottery for FE's stockholders.  Unfortunately, that translates into higher electric bills for consumers because FE's gain is your pain.

Most of the new generation is gas-fired and located in the east, however nobody seems to be quite sure what cleared and what didn't.  Most company reps. weren't available for comment after 5:00 on Friday.  In the states of NJ and MD, where a battle against PJM and FERC has been taking place to build new generation, here's what information is available: 

"New Jersey power company NRG Energy Inc said its proposed New Jersey project did not clear the auction.

"We're disappointed but will continue to develop the project," said NRG spokesman David Gaier."

The rest of what I've got is unconfirmed rumor at this point, but supposedly MD's plant cleared, along with Dominion's Warren Co., VA plant.  In NJ the following plants probably cleared:  LS’s West Deptford plant, PSE&G's Sewaren, and Hess's Newark plant, one of the LCAPP projects.  Calpine's Garrison, DE project likely cleared as well.  Hopefully the press will have a chance to confirm this on Monday.

So, what does this indicate for the PATH Project?  I'm not going to speculate, since PJM's decisions about PATH have never been logical or based in reality.  It was always about what the parent companies wanted.  And where are those companies now?  They're playing dodge ball in Ohio.  Might as well ask the Magic 8 Ball... "Reply hazy, try again."  Well, there you have it.

Now that PJM's Market Monitor has withdrawn their complaint, we're supposed to see the results of PJM's Reliability Pricing Model auction today.  PJM has stated that they will be using the auction to re-evaluate the PATH Project and decide whether to abandon it, continue to hold it in "abeyance," or move forward with the project.

So, what is the RPM?  The American Public Power Association has a handy-dandy fact sheet that explains the RPM.

"In 2007, the PJM Interconnection (PJM) began implementing its “Reliability Pricing Model,” or “RPM” – a
funding device to provide extra money to power plant
owners to induce them to build new power plants and
keep old ones running. These are payments over and
above their sales of electricity in the wholesale power
market, also run by PJM."

Has the RPM been an effective tool to get new generation built?

"While the cost has been great, the results have been
slight. PJM claims that considerable capacity has been
secured through its RPM mechanism (over 42,000 MW from 2007 through the 2011 auction)—but these claims
are misleading at best. PJM includes in their figures upgrades of existing plants, withdrawn or canceled retirements, and capacity imports from other regions."

"Perhaps most significantly, very little of the $50 billion
so far for RPM is financing new generation capacity;
rather it is overwhelmingly going to existing generation capacity. More than 93 percent of the total revenue paid by customers has gone to the owners of existing power plants—coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, and other existing capacity types. Only 1.8 percent of the RPM revenue so far has gone to new and “reactivated” generation resources."

How much has the RPM cost you?

"Since it began in 2007, RPM has cost customers in
PJM’s territory approximately $50 billion (through the
end of 2011). This works out to approximately $900
per man, woman, and child living in PJM’s 13-state
area. This cost, however, is not evenly distributed
throughout the region; customers in the eastern portion
of PJM have shouldered the main burden of this
cost. New Jersey’s portion alone is over $11 billion and
counting—or almost $1,300 per person living in New
Jersey today. For the RTO overall, in 2010 the RPM
added $140 per year to the average electric bill of a
homeowner, $1,000 for a retail store, and $15,000 for
an industrial facility."

At the PJM cartel, it's not about fair markets, it's about PIG -- Protection of Incumbent Generators.

Just how deep does the scheme to protect incumbent generators at PJM go?  You might be surprised!

PJM's "independent" Market Monitor filed a complaint at FERC earlier this month, seeking to make a certain state-sponsored generation project increase the price bid into PJM's RPM auction, or alternatively, allow all other bidders to re-work their prices.  The MM also asked that FERC delay the auction until this matter is settled.

At issue here are programs in the states of Maryland and New Jersey that have been put in place to encourage the development of new in-state generation, instead of continuing to rely on imported electricity (mostly produced from burning coal) from existing western generators which will be transported to the states via new high-voltage transmission lines hundreds of miles long.

PJM has been championing incumbent generators' strangle-hold over eastern markets at FERC, and recently had the rules changed as a means to prevent New Jersey and Maryland's generation projects from clearing the auction, which is a requirement for moving forward.

When "Project X" (okay, why are we pretending here?  we all know it's Maryland's project) made a bid that was low enough to clear, the IMM filed a complaint accusing them of not following the rules.  The IMM says:

"Selective use of favorable modeling assumptions also creates the potential to distort market outcomes because it can make a more expensive project appear to be cheaper. The result could be that the more expensive project clears in the RPM auction while the less expensive project does not clear. This would be a non-competitive outcome."

Let's talk about "fair" and "competitive," shall we, IMM?  If your incumbent generator PIGS were required to include the $6B cost of new transmission projects to transport their "cheap" electricity to eastern markets in the prices they bid into your auction, what would the true price of their electricity be?  If we're going to be truly fair, that's the only way to do it.

Instead, in PJM's unfair and uncompetitive electricity markets, the true cost of western generation is subsidized by all consumers in PJM via PJM's region-wide postage stamp cost allocation for transmission projects 500kV or over.  This enables PJM's incumbent generators to make artificially low bids into the RPM because new transmission necessary to get their generation to load on the east coast will be subsidized by ratepayers far from Maryland or New Jersey, with the beneficiaries of these transmission projects paying only a fraction of the cost of supplying them with electricity.  When new generation is built in Maryland or New Jersey, the entire cost of the project will be borne by that state's ratepayers.  When new transmission is built to import incumbent generators' electricity into the state, Maryland and New Jersey only pay a fraction of the cost.  This is not "fair" or "competitive."

PJM's ball of twine just keeps unraveling.  Now they've even screwed up their own auction with their continual kowtowing to the financial wants of certain incumbent utility conglomerates. What's next?  Are we going to see the incumbent generators' front group spring into action?  Spare us the posturing.  We aren't buying it.

Grab your tin foil hat and crank up the generator, Armageddon is nearly upon us!  In a complaint filed yesterday, Primary Power LLC asks FERC to restore ownership of its SVC projects to Primary Power no later than July 13, and issue an immediate order preventing FirstEnergy and Dominion from beginning construction of the two projects that they stole from Primary Power by exerting their incumbent power over the PJM cartel.

"Primary Power respectfully submits that the actions of PJM and the Incumbent Transmission Owners addressed in this Complaint raise grave concerns for the future of new competitive transmission development in the United States. This is essentially the “Armageddon scenario” in which PJM and the Incumbent Transmission Owners have acted in a concerted, and unduly discriminatory, manner to prevent a potential new entrant from building new cost-of-service transmission facilities in PJM, despite the fact that there is a Commission order directly on point telling PJM to designate Primary Power if any of the projects that it sponsored were included in the RTEP. If Primary Power cannot be designated to build its SVCs in this well documented proceeding that already is the subject of a Commission order, then who can? If PJM’s actions are allowed to stand, it will provide a roadmap for incumbent transmission owners across the United States on how to block entry by competitors, and it will send a chilling signal to independent transmission developers and investors that the Commission is not willing to intervene to enforce its open access requirements. This Complaint thus represents a critical test case for the Commission’s commitment to opening up the market for transmission development to competition, which, as the Commission found in Order No. 1000, can result in more efficient and cost-effective solutions for ratepayers."

At issue here are two projects that will supply reactive power to the grid, without the building of new transmission lines.  Primary Power spent 5 years and $5M developing these projects and shared them with PJM and its "stakeholders" during the approval process.  PJM initially approved the projects and assigned them to their sponsor, Primary Power, for construction.  However, after all the work of design, development and approval was completed, PJM incumbent bullies and PIGS Dominion and FirstEnergy decided they wanted to build the projects instead.  So, what did PJM do?  They reassigned the projects to their favored incumbents, of course, and told Primary Power to go suck wind. 

I'm sure this doesn't come as any surprise to PATH opponents, who have had a front row seat to PJM's favoritism of its incumbent bullies  for the past 4 years.  PJM's bald favoritism of certain companies flies in the face of even the most basic logic, and it's way past time for FERC to rein them in.  Primary Power is but one more example of PJM's collusion with a handful of power conglomerates to increase their profits with the building of unnecessary infrastructure, and to prevent competitive markets.  Primary Power gets quite dramatic in their filing, however it's all true and well deserved.  The continued skewing of PJM's markets to favor certain incumbents keeps the prices consumers pay for electricity high and fails to provide the consumers with state-of-the-art, least cost options for electric service.  If PJM's arbitrary and capricious decision in Primary Power is allowed to stand, Primary Power will go belly-up and it's going to be a cold day in hell before another new company proposes an innovative (or cheaper) solution to identified transmission needs.  The incumbents will have exactly what they desire, a lock on all new transmission projects, similar to their current stranglehold on the development of new generation.  This does not serve electric consumers!

It's time to clean house at PJM.  The dirty dealing could be peeled off in layers at this point, and it's starting to stink up the place.  Once they've cleaned all the stink out of PJM, FERC should prohibit lobbying of any kind at PJM in order to prevent a recurrence.  Lobbying has no place in a competitive electric market that benefits consumers.  And while FERC is at it, they need to prohibit lobbying in their own house as well.  Regulation should never be subject to lobbying as lobbying does nothing to further just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates.

Yesterday, attorneys for environmental groups, along with attorneys for the utilities and the BPU, presented arguments before a New Jersey Court of Appeals on the BPU's approval of the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project.  The Court now has to decide whether to let the BPU's decision stand, or remand the case back to the BPU for further consideration or a whole new hearing.

I wonder what the BPU would do with the S-R line if it came back under their jurisdiction at this point in time?  I'm guessing it could get pretty interesting!

The article says that the arguments centered on whether S-R is still needed in light of lowered demand. 

"But neither PJM nor the BPU can rely on future events, attorney Marc Lasky told the judges in his arguments on behalf of PSE&G.

"PJM determined whether there was a need for some project to address reliability issues," he told the panel. "It was not PSE&G which decided on its own Roseland-Susquehanna was needed."

He said neither the regional operator nor the utility can "rely on wishes and hope. Does one put the reliability of the entire power grid at risk by wishes and hopes?"

PJM uses "wishes and hopes" to predict need for projects like S-R in the future, and how much of PJM's
"wishes and hopes" RTEP is based on old (or manufactured) data?  Would a new, honest evaluation show that other cheaper, faster solutions to any remaining violations may now be a more viable alternative to an increasingly expensive transmission over-build that relies on Project Mountaineer's 2005 "wishes and hopes" to increase the import of Ohio Valley coal-fired electric generation to the east coast by 5,000 MW?  The economic scenario upon which Project Mountaineer relied no longer exists.  Coal-fired generation is no longer "cheaper."  Are electric consumers in the PJM region truly being served by PJM's transmission planning process here?  I'm thinking not.

PSE&G probably thinks their project is "too big to fail" at this point in time.  After all, they have sprinkled over $70M of your money around to various groups and entities in order to silence any opposition to their project and grease certain strategic wheels. 

Here's a list of the publicly admitted "financial inducements" the utilities have agreed to pay to date:

$40M to The Nature Conservancy to perform "mitigation" in exchange for approval by the National Park Service of the destruction of The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and The Appalachian Trail.

$20M to the NJ Highlands Council in exchange for dropping their opposition to S-R.

A total somewhere in the neighborhood of $4M to various New Jersey towns for "mitigation" in exchange for the towns dropping their opposition to S-R.

$1.5M to the Montville Board of Education for "mitigation" of S-R's EMF on a school.

$1M to the Fredon School for "mitigation" of EMF at the school.

An "undisclosed amount" to the Saw Creek community in Pennsylvania in exchange for dropping their opposition to the project.

An unknown amount for strategic property purchases and other expenditures (estimated in the millions).

Totaling up just the known amounts, the utilities have already spent around $70M of their project's estimated $1B cost.  How much did the utilities budget for these kinds of "financial inducements" in their cost estimates?  When a cost estimate for S-R that includes this $70M of "inducements" is compared to other other alternatives, is S-R still the most cost effective solution?  What alternatives were even considered in the first place?

The cost of the S-R project, including all these "inducements," will be repaid to the utilities, along with a 12.9% yearly return, by the 60 million electric consumers in the 13-state PJM region.  The press persists in wrongly claiming that the utilities are paying these "inducements."  They're not.  The utility is merely "loaning" you the money for "your" transmission project now, and and will be well paid by you for doing so.  And the more they spend, the more they make!

But now, a court stands in their way.  They wouldn't be so bold as to try to "induce" a court, now would they?  I wonder how much something like that would cost?  Can someone contact John Grisham and let him know that we may have the plot of his next novel forming here?

It was beat up on PJM day today at the Platts Northeast Power Markets industry conference in New York.  In addition to being called "a complete failure," PJM's capacity market was also referred to as "PIG" by NJ BPU President Robert Hanna.

"The current [PJM] capacity market is skewed to incumbents and subject to manipulation by incumbents," he said.

Hanna said when he first took his post as head of the BPU -- he was appointed in December 2011 -- he was bewildered by all the acronyms used in the power sector, but he soon created his own for the RPM: PIG, which he said stands for Protection of Incumbent Generators.

"PIG rules," he said of the RPM..."

PJM Market Monitor Joseph Bowring sort of tried to defend PJM, but admitted, "it is gameable."

Read the complete article here.

Note:  This post has been updated with more information, please read below for new updates and links to additional information!

A new 138kV transmission line between Buckhannon and Weston has suddenly popped up in PJM's latest TEAC presentation.  Click here to see the specific PJM slide relating to this proposed project.  No route has been proposed (at least publicly) for this transmission project, but it will require new rights-of-way on previously undisturbed land... possibly yours, if you live between Buckhannon and Weston.

PJM says "Approval of all upgrades in this presentation, except those noted as still under review will be sought from the PJM Board of Managers at their May 17th meeting."

Who is the PJM Board of Managers?

Don't forget how FirstEnergy (Allegheny Energy at that time) treated the landowners and environment while building their TrAIL project.

UPDATED April 29:

Bill at The Power Line has done some research on the applicable WV Code section(s).  Read his post about the proposed B-W line here.

This proposed line is a perfect example of how PJM's tightly interconnected transmission system works.  Changes made many miles away from you can result in the need for changes in your backyard.  Remember, any changes to the transmission system will result in more changes.  The entire PJM TEAC presentation lists hundreds of (mostly small) changes related to generation plant closings, primarily equipment upgrades, reconductoring and rebuilding, but very few new lines.  Other PJM documentation indicates that the B-W line is a result of FirstEnergy's first wave of plant closings in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland announced on January 26.  Further planning changes could occur before PJM's proposed June 1, 2016 in service date.  Meanwhile, PJM will make due with "operating procedure in place to mitigate impacts until this upgrade [is] complete."

Fortunately, there is much that can be done to shape this transmission project now, if it indeed proves to be necessary.  This is by far the earliest affected landowners have taken notice of one of these projects.  How many landowners regularly peruse PJM's extensive document collection to fish out projects that may affect them?  None.  I just happened to notice this project while paging through the document for other purposes.

As well, landowners potentially affected by the B-W project have a wealth of knowledge from which to draw that has been developed by grassroots groups opposing the PATH project.  The power companies rely on their tried and true "divide and conquer" methods to get these projects built.  The landowners' most effective weapons to best protect their interests will be knowledge and solidarity, and above all, strategy.  It's never too early to begin organizing.  Don't wait until the power company land agent is knocking on your door.  And that's about as far as I would like to go in this venue.  If you're reading this on the internet, so are the power companies.  Development of effective strategy must be kept close.  If you would like to discuss further, email us or Bill at The Power Line, however, execution and action will need to be carried out by affected individuals.  Nobody else is going to make this proposal magically go away for you, you've got to help yourself.  Situations constantly present themselves in life that make you say to yourself, "someone should do something about that!"  Who is "someone?"  "Someone" doesn't exist - "someone" is you.

The Maryland Public Service Commission ordered the construction of a new 661 MW natural-gas fired generation plant in Waldorf yesterday.  The PSC also requires Pepco, BG&E and Delmarva Power to buy power from the plant.  Construction of the plant is expected to save Maryland electric consumers 49 cents per month in current congestion and capacity payments.  Construction of the PATH project was expected to cost Maryland electric consumers somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 cents per month.

This is a huge victory over the PJM cartel, who has attempted to limit the building of new generation on the east coast in order to preserve the transmission and capacity revenues of their favored incumbent generators of dirty, coal-fired electricity in the Ohio Valley, the "PJM Power Providers Group."

A similar power struggle over new generation is occurring in New Jersey.  The two states are currently faced with some of the highest electricity costs in PJM.  PJM, on behalf of the "power providers," has been fighting the states at FERC, insisting that their markets are working to stimulate new generation.  PJM's farce is no longer working.

So, with both New Jersey and Maryland building new, cheaper, generation, there's absolutely no "need" for PATH or other Project Mountaineer transmission lines (not that there ever was).  Just one more nail in the moldering corpse of  PATH's coffin.

If you've been following along on the Primary Power SVC issue at PJM that we've featured here and here, your wallet should be thrilled that PJM has awarded the projects to incumbent transmission owners FirstEnergy and Dominion.

As you will recall, Primary Power claims to have spent $5M developing this project over the past few years in cooperation with PJM engineers, and they were awarded a 200 basis point incentive by FERC for the project in 2010.

Meanwhile, a couple of PJM's favored incumbent utilities have swooped in at the last minute and taken the project away from Primary Power.  As I recall, the last letter Primary Power sent to PJM's Board of Managers was cc'd to their attorney.

The cartel has placed themselves in a precarious legal position, but that's nothing new.  As we've seen many times before, they will stoop to amazing depths of depravity in order to make sure their favored "stakeholders" continue to receive all the tastiest morsels.  Apparently "right of first refusal" (where incumbents get first crack at needed upgrades) isn't dead at PJM, despite FERC doing away with it in Order No. 1000.

Now, here's the stupidest part of the whole thing (and where your wallet comes in).  If Primary Power ends up filing a lawsuit against PJM and is successful, guess who will pay the award?  YOU will!  That's right, because PJM is a "not-for-profit" and generates no profits, you ratepayers are PJM's piggy bank.  So, let's assume the court sees fit to punish PJM for their arbitrary and capricious award of the SVC projects... PJM doesn't care because they will just pass any punishment on to you in the form of a higher electric bill.

The cartel has got to go.

Let's check in and see what's cookin' on the docket for PJM's new RTEP planning process at FERC.

A plethora of parties have filed motions to intervene, including (of course!) power companies and their transmission affiliates, environmental organizations, land-based wind's front group, renewable companies,  Atlantic Wind Connection (not to be confused with their land-based wind opponents) and a handful of states.  Some parties have filed brief comments.  Among these, there's a couple worth reading.

New Jersey BPU seems to think that PJM has gone off the deep end by including "public policy objectives" as a driver for transmission projects.

"While NJBPU is sympathetic to PJM’s perceived need to include non-codified policy-based factors into its RTEP process, this requirement greatly broadens the pool of assumptions that drive transmission development. This expansive reading of Order 1000 exposes stakeholders to the real risk that costly and undesirable policy-based projects linger in the planning analysis. The longer “specter” projects are modeled, the more likely they become a fixture in the RTEP process. This scenario could drive the development of policy-driven transmission assets based solely upon their recurring presence in PJM’s RTEP models, and further emphasizes the need to prominently include state veto authority in any future filings regarding Order 1000."

And about that "state veto," NJ suggests:

"NJBPU also strongly supports a cost allocation methodology whereby the states that will incur the financial burden of developing a policy-driven transmission asset retain veto power over the project. No party should bear the costs of developing a policy-driven asset that does not comport with that state’s guiding principles, regardless of any collateral reliability or economic benefit identified by PJM.

Moreover, policy is dynamic and changes quickly in response to political, social, and economic factors. By contrast, the decision to develop and build multi-billion-dollar transmission assets cannot change in lockstep with policy; the costs and impacts are simply too significant. Therefore, any cost allocation methodology flowing from a policy-driven framework must contain a safety-valve veto whereby the states may refuse ratepayer financed projects that fail to produce a benefit commensurate with the policy’s long-term value."

They also get their digs in about NJ's frowned-upon LCAPP:

"NJBPU believes that PJM’s resource planning must include an assessment of transmission and non-transmission solutions to identified reliability violations as acknowledged by the Commission in Order 1000. From this perspective, PJM’s resource planning process should include state sanctioned generation solutions. This approach allows PJM to fulfill its federal mandate of ensuring that the bulk transmission system remains reliable, while preserving the states’ constitutionally protected right to site generation resources within their territory."

NJ also had this to say:

"PJM deserves praise for seizing an opportunity to expand its interaction with the entities representing the individuals who ultimately shoulder much of this fiduciary burden – the state ratepayers. However, while these efforts are commendable, to date they are incomplete. Without the ability to measure these changes against a clearly articulated and comprehensive cost allocation methodology, state stakeholders are unable to adequately assess the impact of PJM’s proposal."

This comment was filed prior to last Friday's postage-stamp rate justification.  Ut-oh!  So, how is FERC thinking that "public policy" projects 500kV or above are going to be allocated?  Shall we charge everybody in the region for one state's law?  FERC seems to think that's okay, as long as that state gets some of those ethereal "integration" benefits that PJM provides.  This just keeps getting more convoluted and unreasonable as we go along.

North Carolina also got offended by the "public policy objectives" thing:

"The North Carolina Agencies have an over-arching conviction that the FERC’s regulation of transmission planning, especially as articulated in Order 1000, over-steps the FERC’s jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act. PJM’s proposed amendments, especially its introduction of the concepts of “public policy requirements” and “public policy objectives,” echo and even go beyond Order 1000 requirements, and therefore raise serious concerns.

Setting aside the thorny jurisdictional issues which the North Carolina Agencies have already articulated in their request for rehearing of Order 1000, the North Carolina Agencies oppose the proposed introduction into PJM’s Operating Agreement of the new concept, “public policy objectives.” While the inclusion of “public policy requirements” in transmission planning raises significant concerns, the inclusion of “public policy objectives” is inappropriate, particularly given the potential for its inclusion to cause transmission planning and cost allocation to become even more controversial than they currently are.

The North Carolina Agencies are concerned that the inclusion of such objectives will result in the enlargement or expansion of the size and scope of otherwise appropriately defined transmission projects. Such enlargement or expansion could be based on a “public policy objective” that is not supported by some or all of the states in PJM’s footprint, and such expansion could cause a transmission project to become subject to PJM’s postage stamp cost allocation methodology, thus burdening customers throughout PJM’s footprint."

They also brought up the postage-stamp cost allocation method that FERC just blessed last Friday:

"To date, PJM’s postage stamp cost allocation method has proven controversial, even for transmission that is being built for reliability or economics.6 The North Carolina Agencies oppose allowing the vague and uncertain concept of “public policy objectives” to create the potential for inclusion of enlarged projects into PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP). Such objectives might not be in the best interests of North Carolina’s citizens, and a fair cost allocation method has not been established for the incremental costs of such projects. Therefore, the North Carolina Agencies oppose the inclusion of “public policy objectives” in PJM’s transmission planning process."

Stay tuned... this is shaping up to be another epic FERC fracas.