Docket Nos. ER22-1606-000, EL21-39-000
I concur with the judgment because accepting and suspending the proposed rate and consolidating it with Docket No. EL21-39 affords the Commission the opportunity to address the related issues of these cases in a single proceeding, potentially with the benefit of guidance from the D.C. Circuit court of appeals in its disposition of Consolidated Edison v. FERC,[1] which has been fully briefed and argued.
Further, by accepting, suspending, and setting for hearing, we provide market participants that suffer from potential discrimination from the de minimis rule with a modicum of relief from some of its effects while the broader issues in the complaint remain pending. That said, there is reason to question how the de minimis threshold implemented by the PJM Transmission Owners can be just and reasonable given the manner in which that rule favors larger load zones over smaller ones. I therefore harbor deep concerns with the rate proposal at issue here to the extent it preserves the de minimis threshold outside host load zones.
Because this core concern relates to the complaint in Docket EL21-39, however, and because the complainants raised additional issues with the existing rate that are not presented by the proposal at issue here, it is appropriate to consolidate the proceedings such that all the issues in the now-consolidated proceedings can be examined in one fell swoop. Today’s order is also helpful insofar as the additional questions asked by the Commission may shed light on whether a host zone derives any unique benefits from the relevant facilities that warrant unique cost allocation.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] D.C. Cir., Case No. 15-1183, et al. (oral argument held March 14, 2022).