Commissioner Mark C. Christie Statement
April 14, 2022
Docket No. ER22-902-000
I write separately to emphasize an important part of today’s Order. The Order properly does not attempt to answer – potentially many years in advance – speculative questions about the details of any cost-sharing or cost-allocation proposals that may come to this Commission. The only proposal on the table now is New Jersey’s State Agreement Approach (SAA)[1] Agreement, which does not allocate any costs to customers, wholesale or retail, in states other than New Jersey.
This Order explicitly recognizes that:
[A]lthough section 6.2(g) mentions a pro rata allocation to potential future users, approval by the Commission of a subsequent cost allocation filing is necessary to implement such an allocation. Indeed, both PJM’s and NJ BPU’s answers and the SAA Agreement itself explain that no costs will be allocated to customers outside of New Jersey unless and until the Commission accepts a future cost allocation filing as just and reasonable.[2]
Moreover – and importantly –the very next paragraph of today’s Order makes clear that while the Order does not attempt to answer any questions about whether any future cost allocations are just and reasonable, it does answer that such proposed allocation must be consistent with the State Agreement Approach:
While we therefore can make no determination as to any future cost allocations arrangements here, and, as a result, we similarly do not speculate as to the identity of any “future users,” this Commission need not speculate as to who cannot be among the future users in any future cost sharing arrangement: the future users may not include a state other than New Jersey or that state’s customers unless that state, consistent with the State Agreement Approach, voluntarily agrees to make its customers responsible for any costs. Any attempt otherwise is contrary to the basic tenets of the State Agreement Approach and is not accepted by the Commission in this order. We note that PJM and NJ BPU agree with this premise and explain that in any such future cost allocation filing, consistent with the requirements of the Operating Agreement, those “future users” contemplated by the cost sharing provision would not include customers of a state that has not voluntarily agreed to be responsible for such costs. We base our acceptance of the SAA Agreement on our understanding in this regard.[3]
I agree with this representation by PJM and NJ BPU and the Commission’s finding in this Order is based on that representation. Any other representation by PJM and NJ PBU would be inconsistent with the State Agreement Approach. It is based on this representation and this Order’s finding in this regard, that I therefore concur with the Order.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] As noted in the Order, the State Agreement Approach is a mechanism by which states pay for their own public policy-driven transmission projects. See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 179 FERC ¶ 61,024, at P 2 (2022). The SAA was proposed by PJM with its Order No. 1000 compliance filing and its use was approved by this Commission. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 142 FERC ¶ 61,214, at PP 142-143 (2013), order on reh’g and compliance, 147 FERC ¶ 61,128, at P 92 (2014); order on reh’g and compliance, 150 FERC ¶ 61,038, order on reh’g and compliance, 151 FERC ¶ 61,250 (2015); PJM, Intra-PJM Tariffs, Operating Agreement, sched. 6, section 1.5.9(a) (State Agreement Approach).
[2] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 179 FERC ¶ 61,024 at P 42 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
[3] Id. P 43 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).