UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`Docket No. EL08-34-000
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`Maryland Public Service Commission
`
`v.
`
`PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
`
`MOTION OF PJM POWER PROVIDERS GROUP
`TO INTERVENE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`PJM Power Providers Group (“P3”) hereby moves to intervene in the above-captioned
`
`complaint (“Complaint”) case the Maryland Public Service Connection’s(“MD PSC”) has filed
`
`against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”).In addition, P3 moves to extend the response time
`
`from February 4 to February 18. All communications should be directed to counsel listed in the
`
`signature block below.
`
`I. MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`P3 is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to promoting policies that will allow the PJM
`
`region to fulfill the promise of its competitive wholesale electricity markets. P3 strongly
`
`believes that properly designed and well-functioning competitive markets are the most effective
`
`means of ensuring a reliable supply of power to the PJM region, facilitating investments in
`
`alternate energy and demand response technology, and promoting prices that will allow
`
`consumers to enjoy the benefits of competitive electricity markets. Combined, P3 members own
`
`nearly 74,000 megawatts of power and over 51,000 miles of transmission lines in the PJM region,
`
`serve nearly 12.2 million customers and employ over 55,000 people in the 14-state PJM region.1
`
`1
`
`The views expressed in this motion are those of the PJM Power Providers Group and are not necessarily
`those of individual members of the organization.
`
`
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`Docket No. EL08-34-000
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`Maryland Public Service Commission
`
`v.
`
`PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
`
`MOTION OF PJM POWER PROVIDERS GROUP
`TO INTERVENE AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`PJM Power Providers Group (“P3”) hereby moves to intervene in the above-captioned
`
`complaint (“Complaint”) case the Maryland Public Service Connection’s(“MD PSC”) has filed
`
`against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”).In addition, P3 moves to extend the response time
`
`from February 4 to February 18. All communications should be directed to counsel listed in the
`
`signature block below.
`
`I. MOTION TO INTERVENE
`
`P3 is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to promoting policies that will allow the PJM
`
`region to fulfill the promise of its competitive wholesale electricity markets. P3 strongly
`
`believes that properly designed and well-functioning competitive markets are the most effective
`
`means of ensuring a reliable supply of power to the PJM region, facilitating investments in
`
`alternate energy and demand response technology, and promoting prices that will allow
`
`consumers to enjoy the benefits of competitive electricity markets. Combined, P3 members own
`
`nearly 74,000 megawatts of power and over 51,000 miles of transmission lines in the PJM region,
`
`serve nearly 12.2 million customers and employ over 55,000 people in the 14-state PJM region.1
`
`1
`
`The views expressed in this motion are those of the PJM Power Providers Group and are not necessarily
`those of individual members of the organization.
`
`
`
`P3 opposes the complaint. Members of P3 would be directly affected if the complaint
`
`were granted in whole or in part, P3’s interests cannot be adequately represented by any other
`
`party, and P3’s participation is in the public interest. P3 therefore respectfully seeks intervention
`
`with the full rights of a party.
`
`II. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`The Commission should grant a two-week extension of time for P3 and other interested
`
`parties to respond to the complaint. The MD PSC’srequest for fast-track processing is
`
`unwarranted, as discussed below. The Commission already has recognized this by declining to
`
`set an expedited answer period of 10 days, choosing, instead, the normal 21-day period.
`
`Under
`
`the specific circumstances of this case, a modest additional extension is
`
`appropriate. While the complaint suffers numerous patent—and fatal—flaws, it includes 47
`
`pages of text, an expert affidavit and voluminous appendices. Considerable time and effort
`
`obviously was spent in its preparation.
`
`In order to submit a thorough response, including
`
`consultation with appropriate outside experts, a brief extension is needed. Any other outcome
`
`would deny due process to P3 and other interested parties.
`
`Notably, the “offer cap exemption” provisions challenged here by MD PSC have been in
`
`place for years. Moreover, as we currently understand it, the MMU’s objections to the offer cap
`
`exemption provisions on which MD PSC places such great weight were made public no later
`
`than March 2007.2 See, e.g., PJM Market Monitoring Unit, 2006 State of the Market Report
`
`(March
`
`8,
`
`2007)
`
`at
`
`9,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`http://www2.pjm.com/markets/market-
`
`2
`
`The MMU’s comments with respect to the interface exemption were made public even earlier in December
`2006. See, e.g., PJM Market Monitoring Unit, Analysis of the Three Pivotal Supplier Test: March 1
`through August
`31, 2006 (Oct. 8, 2006), available at http://www.pjm.com/markets/market-
`monitor/downloads/mmu-reports/20061220-mmu-interface-qtr-rpt-2.pdf.
`
`2
`
`
`
`monitor/downloads/mmu-reports/2006-som-volume-i.pdf;3 see also Allegheny Electric Coop. v.
`
`PJM Interconnection, LLC, 120 FERC ¶ 61,254 (Sept. 20, 2007). More than ten months passed
`
`since that time. This undercuts any valid basis for fast-track processing or opposition by MD
`
`PSC to the extension we seek. Having taken considerable time to prepare its voluminous filing,
`
`the MD PSC cannot fairly or rationally oppose a modest extension for responsive pleadings.
`
`Finally, while we vigorously oppose any award of refunds in this case, any refund
`
`effective date that may be established should under FPA § 206(b) be determined in reference to
`
`the filing of the complaint, not final adjudication, and thus will be unaffected in any event by the
`
`Commission granting our extension request.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should grant P3’s motion to intervene and
`
`motion for a two-week extension of time, until February 18, 2008, to file responsive pleadings.
`
`Glen Thomas
`GT Power Group
`1060 First Avenue
`Suite 400
`King of Prussia, PA 19406
`gthomas@gtpowergroup.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`___________/s/______________
`William Scherman
`John N. Estes III
`Paul Wight
`SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
`1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-371-7950
`wsherman@skadden.com
`
`Counsel for PJM Power Providers
`
`January 25, 2008
`
`3
`
`We note that this public disclosure of the MMU’s comments undermines MD PSC’s allegations that PJM
`violated its tariff by failure to disclose. Complaint at 37-40.
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I hereby
`
`certify that I have this day caused to be served the foregoing document upon each person
`
`designated on the service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
`
`Dated at Washington, D.C., this 25th day of January 2008.
`
`___________/s/______________
`Carl Edman
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
