PJM faces Order 1000 headaches

Tools

Correction, updated 12/11/12

This article, as originally reported, incorrectly quoted Gloria Godson VP Federal Regulatory Policy
Pepco Holdings, Inc. as saying Order 1000 was "a bad idea for PJM." In fact, she was referring not to Order 1000 but to the fact that intellectual and sponsorhip rights in the transmission process is a bad idea. These issues were not addressed in Order 1000 and after review, FierceEnergy retracts the above assertion and aknowledges it does not accurately represent the view of Ms. Godson.

FierceEnergy also incorrectly reported that Ms. Godson believes that Order 1000 "exploits the inherent disconnect between construction timelines of generation and transmission." It is clear after review of the transcript that Ms. Godson was not referring to Order 1000 when she made these comments and meant only to say that increased coal retirements and the development of gas generation will cause problems for future transmission planning in general due to the vast timeline difference between transmission and generation and development.

FierceEnergy hereby retracts the original comments and quotes and extends a sincere apology to Ms. Godson.

###

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Order 1000 is still causing headaches for regional planning authorities across the United States. These challenges are especially pronounced on the East Coast, which must provide reliable power to many densely populated and high-volume areas while juggling forthcoming transmission, generation and cost allocation regulations.

PJM is one of the largest regional transmission organizations in the eastern U.S., stretching from Pennsylvania to North Carolina. But Order 1000, which implements new regional planning and cost allocation rules, has added stress to the already difficult transmission planning process.

During an industry conference last week, regulators voiced their concerns about how Order 1000 will impact transmission planning going forward. But Order 1000 is likely not the final regulatory word on transmission planning and cost allocation.

"[Order 1000] really was a way to get people together to talk about issues, to plan together, to identify costs, to allocate costs and to try to enable the implementation of public policy issues," said Roy Palk, a senior energy advisor at law firm LeClairRyan.

For more:
-see background on FERC Order 1000

Related Articles:
MISO files update to FERC Order 1000
FERC Order 1000 still baffles utilities