Docket No. EL25-63-001
One of the many challenging aspects to joining a living body like the Commission—which has new Commissioners arrive to replace Commissioners who depart—is that as a newer Commissioner, we frequently step into the middle of ongoing proceedings. This docket provides an example of just that: I was not a member of the Commission in August 2025 when the underlying order for which PJM now seeks clarification and rehearing was issued.[1] But, I vote today to concur in the Commission’s order on PJM’s request.
The opportunity to discuss the Complaint Order with the Commissioners voting at the time would have been valuable. I read with great interest not only the record and the Complaint Order, but the dissenting statement issued by former Chairman Christie.[2] I agree this comes down to a reading of section 3.4 of Appendix 2 of the ISCA and the facts in this record.
I also agree that the language in section 3.4 is vague and problematic. I understand the language the Commission pointed out in its determination to support the Complaint Order[3] and today’s order.[4] I also fully understand, however, the arguments raised by PJM in both sub-dockets in this proceeding and by the dissent to the Complaint Order.
While I concur in today’s order, I write separately to recognize PJM’s argument that some entities have previously executed PJM ICSA’s with language similar to Savion’s ICSA and that this may ultimately result in certain entities holding onto capacity longer than may be preferred.
In a time where it is obvious to many that PJM needs more generation and the appropriate transmission to transport that generation, PJM is concerned that the possibility exists that certain developers with ICSA’s like Savion’s could “hoard capacity.”[5] Today’s order notes that the way to account for any such potential ICSA-related hoarding in the future is for PJM to revise its ICSA language.[6] But, today’s order also appears to recognize that the ICSA language cannot be revised prospectively as it was overcome by events in the PJM queue reform order which, among other things, created a one-year extension of milestones and did away with the suspension clause at issue here.[7] Today’s order also notes that PJM could refrain from treating projects as two-phased projects in the future.[8]
As I have noted (loudly and often, I hope), I support the Commission reviewing any proposed tariff revisions—as well as the Commission’s own rules and regulations—that carefully consider in a manner consistent with the Commission’s statutory obligations, speeding up the process of getting steel in the ground and in service. While I understand PJM’s concern, given the language in the suspension section we are left with little choice here in our determination.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Savion, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 192 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2025) (Complaint Order).
[2] Id. (Christie, Chairman, dissenting, https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/chairman-christies-dissent-order-savion-complaint-against-pjm-el25-63).
[3] See, e.g., Complaint Order, 192 FERC ¶ 61,126 at PP 41-44.
[4] See, e.g., Savion, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 194 FERC ¶ 61,240, at PP 28-30 (2026) (Rehearing Order).
[5] See, e.g., id. P 43 (“PJM reiterates its concern that the Commission’s findings in the Complaint Order will invite other Project Developers to split their projects in a way that allows them to determine which milestone deadlines apply, allowing Project Developers to hoard capacity.” (footnote omitted)); id. P 44 (“PJM raises concerns that Project Developers might invoke their suspension rights in a disruptive or unjustified manner.” (footnote omitted)); Complaint Order, 192 FERC ¶ 61,126 at P 22 (“PJM argues that the relief Savion seeks appears to be a ‘tactic to delay completion of its project and hoard the interconnection capacity,’ which PJM states would be unjust, unreasonable, and unfair to other project developers that would want to access the unutilized capacity.” (footnote omitted)); id. (Christie, Chairman, dissenting, at P 8) (“PJM also adds that it would ‘undermine Tariff compliance and inject uncertainty into the interconnection process’ while ‘further disrupt[ing] PJM’s interconnection queue.’ 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.” (footnotes omitted)).
[6] Rehearing Order, 194 FERC ¶ 61,240 at P 44 (“If PJM finds the Suspension Clause untenable, as permitted pursuant to the FPA, ‘the proper venue to address these concerns is through prospective revisions to PJM’s pro forma ICSA.’” (quoting Complaint Order, 192 FERC ¶ 61,126 at P 45) (footnote omitted)).
[7] Id. (“As noted in the Complaint Order, the Commission has, ‘accepted revisions to PJM’s pro forma Generator Interconnection Agreement and Construction Service Agreement that eliminate interconnection customers’ unilateral right to suspend and instead allow for milestone extensions’ to address the potential harms that PJM describes.” (quoting Complaint Order, 192 FERC ¶ 61,126 at P 45 (citing PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 181 FERC ¶ 61,162, at PP 111-117 (2022); PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 192 FERC ¶ 61,077, at PP 93-94 (2025)) (footnote omitted)).
[8] Rehearing Order, 194 FERC ¶ 61,240 at P 22 (“Moreover, PJM contends that, ‘instead of rejecting the request’ to split the project into two phases, it ‘informally accommodated’ the two-phased approach by allowing Savion to put 111 MW of the Martin Project into service in December 2024 without the execution or filing of amended service agreements. PJM further states that, while it allowed this accommodation, PJM emphasized that the milestones apply to the entirety of the project. This indicates that PJM has at least some ability to forestall such disputes by declining to accommodate informal requests to treat single-phased projects as two-phased projects and suggests that the circumstances underlying the dispute in this proceeding are unusual and unlikely to repeat.” (footnotes omitted)).