Commissioner James Danly Statement
June 30, 2021
Docket No. ER21-1787-000
I agree with the Commission’s order today denying the requested waiver of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) interconnection queue deadlines. As explained in the order, the waiver request fails to satisfy our four-factor test for granting waivers. However, we did not need to apply the four-factor test here because the request was for a retroactive waiver that the Commission has no statutory authority to grant, as I have explained on numerous previous occasions.[1]
I further write to commend PJM for making its views known to the Commission. As I have previously noted, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Commission to evaluate requests to waive interconnection queue deadlines without knowing the transmission provider’s views on the merits of the developer’s claims or the effects of granting the requested waiver on other projects in the queue and the transmission provider’s management of its interconnection queue.[2] PJM’s input in this case was invaluable.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See, e.g., Sunflower Elec. Power Corp., 173 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2020) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at P 5).
[2] See, e.g., TGE Pennsylvania 202, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,080 (2021) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at PP 4-5); Leeward Renewable Energy, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,079 (2021) (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting at PP 4-5).