Commissioner James Danly Statement
July 30, 2021
Docket Nos. ER21-2043-000 ER20-584-000 EL19-100-000
I concur in the Commission’s order today because, on the record before us, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s (PJM) Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) proposal meets the requirements of section 205 of the Federal Power Act. Commissioner Christie may well be—in fact, probably is—correct that a marginal approach to allocating capacity to individual resources would be preferable to PJM’s proposed resource-class based averaging mechanism. But the fact that there might be a better approach does not change the standard we must apply under section 205.[1] Should parties seek rehearing, I urge them to concentrate their pleadings on why PJM’s proposal is not just and reasonable or why it is unduly discriminatory or preferential. That, ultimately, is all we are called upon to decide here.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C. v. FERC, 496 F.3d 695, 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“FERC is not required to choose the best solution, only a reasonable one.”); Wis. Pub. Power, Inc. v. FERC, 493 F.3d 239, 266 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“Merely because petitioners can conceive of a refund allocation method that they believe would be superior to the one FERC approved does not mean that FERC erred in concluding the latter was just and reasonable.”).