Docket No. EL25-63-000
I dissent from today’s order because it allows a project developer to circumvent the requirements of its interconnection agreement by “suspending” a currently operational project and thereby letting interconnection capacity go unused, which will further disrupt and delay PJM’s interconnection queue and increase uncertainty among those trying to get through that queue in a timely manner.
PJM—the entity responsible for making sure generators can interconnect to the transmission system in a reliable, efficient and transparent manner—strongly urges the Commission to deny the complaint.[1] I write separately today to note that not only am I persuaded by PJM’s answers to the complaint, but I find that the record in this proceeding fails to adequately support the majority’s determination.
The facts here are straightforward: Savion agreed to construct a 190 MW solar project and achieve commercial operation by December 15, 2025. Failing to meet its construction obligations, Savion constructed only part of the project (111 MW) and began injecting power into the PJM system in December 2024. Savion made several attempts to extend the previously-agreed-upon construction and operational milestones in order to get additional time to construct the remaining portion of its project. But PJM found that Savion failed to provide sufficient evidence—in fact, it repeatedly failed to provide any evidence—to support its request for a milestone extension.[2] Having failed in these attempts, Savion then switched gears and instead contended that it has a right under section 3.4 of the Interconnection Construction Service Agreement (ICSA) to “suspend” the construction and installation Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities, despite the fact that the project was already operational and injecting power into the system. AEP—the Transmission Owner here—confirmed for PJM that “[a]ll AEP construction has been completed”[3] and PJM denied Savion’s suspension request on grounds that there is no remaining work to be suspended. Dissatisfied again with PJM’s determination, Savion brought this complaint.
I would find that PJM properly applied the suspension provisions in section 3.4 of the ICSA by denying Savion’s suspension request. The ICSA permits a project developer to suspend work “associated with the construction and installation” of the Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities.[4] Here, the record demonstrates that “construction and installation” is complete. Not only is this confirmed by the Transmission Owner itself—which stated in no uncertain terms that “[a]ll AEP construction has been completed”—but: (i) back feed (i.e. reverse power flow) was provided to the project on June 3, 2024;[5] (ii) the interconnection facilities were tested in October 2024;[6] and (iii) the project began injecting power into the transmission system in December 2024.[7] In short, there is no “construction and installation” to be “suspended” under the ICSA.
Today’s order attempts to characterize various future tasks as being associated with “construction and installation” of Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities. It’s easy to get lost in the technical jargon in Savion’s “to-do” list (things like, establishment of “protection and control SCADA points” and “review and adjustment of breaker failure and line protection relay settings.”).[8] But none of those aspirational tasks changes the simple, undeniable fact that the project at hand is currently injecting power into the grid through interconnection facilities that have already been constructed, installed, and energized. Just because there may be adjustments to settings and additional testing procedures of the already constructed and installed facilities does not mean that there is remaining work to be “suspended.”
The majority’s expansive reading of section 3.4 would allow a customer to “suspend” work through and including the time at which the project is operational and injecting power to the system and any time in the future. This reading is illogical. It is plainly at odds with the purpose of suspension, which is to stop work on interconnection facilities when the generating facility is delayed (not when the generating facility is operational). It also ignores the limiting language contained in section 3.4—i.e. that a suspension must be associated with “construction” and “installation” of “Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities.” As PJM states in opposition to Savion’s complaint, section 3.4 of the ICSA “does not create a general right to suspend or defer compliance with the ISA and ICSA’s terms.”[9]
PJM hits the nail on the head, candidly stating:
The relief Savion seeks—allowing the project to enter suspension for 18 months (and only for a portion of its project)—when there is no Interconnected Transmission Owner work to suspend, appears to be a tactic to delay completion of its project and hoard the interconnection capacity, which would be unjust, unreasonable, and unfair to other Project Developers that would want to access the unutilized 79 MW of capacity.[10]
PJM also adds that it would “undermine Tariff compliance and inject uncertainty into the interconnection process”[11] while “further disrupt[ing] PJM’s interconnection queue.”[12] I agree. And I’ll add that the resulting delays and uncertainty hinder development of new generation and stifles competition, which harms PJM at a time when it desperately needs that new generation; instead, today’s order benefits a single developer to the ultimate detriment of consumers.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
[1] PJM, Mar. 24, 2025 Answer (PJM First Answer). In fact, two of the four substantive filings in response to this complaint were filed by PJM and in each of those answers PJM strongly opposed the complaint and requested that this Commission reject the suspension sought by Savion.
[2] For example, PJM states that it asked “a number of times” for “evidence of panel orders,” “a detailed construction schedule,” and “an executed [Engineering, Procurement, and Construction]” contract which could have justified a milestone extension, but Savion “failed to provide any evidence” as required by the interconnection agreement. Id. at 14-15.
[3] PJM First Answer at 6-7 (quoting attach. A (January 9, 2025 email from R. Clonch, AEP, to T. White, PJM)).
[4] PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, OATT, attach. P, app. 2, §3.4 (Suspension) (3.0.0).
[5] See PJM First Answer at 6; PJM, April 23, 2025 Answer at 6 (PJM Second Answer) (“Back feed . . . would not be possible without the completion of the Customer Interconnection Facilities and the Transmission Owner Interconnection Facilities . . . .”).
[6] See PJM Second Answer at 6.
[7] See Complaint at 7, 9-10, Ex. No. SAV-001, Sunderman Testimony, at 4, 11-12; PJM First Answer at 6; PJM Second Answer at 6.
[8] Complaint at 16-17.
[9] PJM Answer at 9.
[10] Id. at 8-9.
[11] Id. at 3.
[12] PJM Second Answer at 6, n.19.