Print Email
E-mail This Page

Please wait... loading

FERC Material
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil. The FERC also regulates hydropower and natural gas projects. PJM Interconnection is regulated by the FERC.

All publicly available FERC filings made by PJM are posted on the FERC filings page. All FERC orders and notices related to PJM are posted on the FERC Orders and Notices page.

Also available are documents related to seams issues; FERC filings made by PJM's transmission owners; and FERC filings that are not specific to PJM, but affect its members.

Below is a listing of the most recent FERC filings, orders, and notices. Additional documents are available via the FERC Filings Archive and FERC Orders and Notices Archive.

Access this content via a news reader
RSS
 Author      Date      Document    
PJM 03.16.2010 Docket No. ER10-xxx-000 pdfPDF
On March 16, 2010, in Docket No. ER10-xxx-000, PJM submitted for filing revised sheets of the PJM Tariff and PJM Operating Agreement. The purpose of the revisions is to address non-substantive typographical errors, incorrect references to sections or defined terms, and out-of-date provisions and references to obsolete companion PJM agreements, collectively referred to as a “Clean-up Filing”.
03.16.2010  pdfPDF
20100316-er10-xxx-000
PJM 03.12.2010 Docket No. ER10-xxx-000 pdfPDF
On March 12, 2010, PJM filed a fully executed Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (NITSA) between PJM and the Borough of Pitcairn, designated as Original Service Agreement No. 2435. The waiver requested an effective date of January 1, 2006.
PJM 03.10.2010 Docket No. ER10-713-000 pdfPDF
On March 10, 2010, PJM and Progress Energy Carolinas filed an Answer in response to the Motion to Intervene and Comments of the Independent Market Monitor for PJM in Docket No. ER10-713-000.
PJM 03.10.2010 Docket No. ES10-26-000 pdfPDF
On March 10, 2010, IN Docket No. ES10-26-000, PJM made a supplemental filing to its February 5, 2010 application for an order authorizing the issuance of securities.
PJM 03.08.2010 Docket No. EL10-45-000 (Part 2) pdfPDF
On March 8, 2010, MISO filed a complaint against PJM, in Docket No. EL10-45-000, alleging that PJM is violation of the JOA because PJM allegedly demanded resettlement of amounts related to the MISO’s use of substitute flowgates in the market-to-market processes under the JOA. PJM believes that the use of substitute flowgates is a violation of the JOA. MISO asks the Commission to order PJM to acknowledge the use of an RCF as a substitute flowgate under the JOA. This complaint also alleges that PJM failed to initiate market-to-market coordination on a bound RCF in violation of the JOA. MISO claims that it is owed approximately $5,000,000 as a result.
Midwest ISO 03.08.2010 Docket No. EL10-46-000 pdfPDF
On March 8, 2010, MISO filed a complaint against PJM in Docket No. EL10-46-000. This complaint relates to PJM’s errors in market flow calculations under the MISO PJM JOA during the period 2005 to 2009. For the 2007 to 2009 period, MISO asks for damages in the amount of $74,534,067, including interest. For the 2005 to 2007 period, MISO admits that there is insufficient information for an accurate calculation of the underpayments but claims nonetheless that $65,040,954 plus interest is due. Thus, MISO seeks in this complaint $130,000,000 plus interest for the alleged under payments. MISO also disputes PJM’s defenses which were raised in the context of the dispute resolution process under the JOA.
Midwest ISO 03.08.2010 Docket No. EL10-45-000 (Part 1) pdfPDF
On March 8, 2010, MISO filed a complaint against PJM, in Docket No. EL10-45-000, alleging that PJM is violation of the JOA because PJM allegedly demanded resettlement of amounts related to the MISO’s use of substitute flowgates in the market-to-market processes under the JOA. PJM believes that the use of substitute flowgates is a violation of the JOA. MISO asks the Commission to order PJM to acknowledge the use of an RCF as a substitute flowgate under the JOA. This complaint also alleges that PJM failed to initiate market-to-market coordination on a bound RCF in violation of the JOA. MISO claims that it is owed approximately $5,000,000 as a result.
  More >>