UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. : : Complainant, : Docket No. EL18-26-000 : v. : : Midcontinent Independent System : Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc.: and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. : : Respondents. : MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Pursuant to Rule 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( Commission or FERC ), 1 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ( PJM ) moves to dismiss the complaint brought by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. ( EDF or Complainant ) against PJM in this docket 2 and to postpone the date upon which an answer to the Complaint otherwise would be due. The sole premise of the Complaint that PJM s Open Access Transmission Tariff ( PJM Tariff ) and the Joint Operating Agreement Between the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ( MISO-PJM JOA ) 3 are unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential because there is absolutely no documented process for how the Affected Systems coordination occurs, study delivery timing requirements and the standards that are used to determine Affected System 1 18 C.F.R. 385.212 (2017). 2 EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Complaint Requesting Fast Track Processing of EDF Renewable Energy, Inc., Docket No. EL18-26-000 (Oct. 30, 2017) ( Complaint ). 3 See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Electric Tariff, FERC Rate Schedule No. 38 and Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule No. 5.

impacts 4 fails as a matter of fact and law. Consistent with well-established precedent, PJM requests that the Commission exercise its discretion to find, as discussed below, that EDF has failed to provide any facts 5 which would form the basis for a violation of the Federal Power Act, the Commission s regulations or any Commission policy 6 to warrant any action by the Commission against PJM in this docket. I. BACKGROUND EDF brings this Complaint against three neighboring regional transmission organizations ( RTOs ) Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. ( MISO ), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. ( SPP ) and PJM regarding new generation proposing to interconnect in MISO, as the host RTO, that must be studied for impacts on MISO s neighboring RTOs systems ( Affected Systems ). In its Complaint, EDF alleges that due to the lack of detail in the respective RTOs tariffs and joint operating agreements, an interconnection customer has no idea what coordination means when Affected System studies are required to interconnect between the MISO and its neighboring RTOs. 7 The crux of the Complaint is that the tariffs and JOAs lack the level of transparency and detail EDF believes should be, but is not, required under the Order No. 2003 or the Commission s pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures ( LGIP ) or Large Generator Interconnection Agreement ( LGIA ). This is evidenced by the fact that 4 Complaint at 22. 5 CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Commission, et al., 129 FERC 61,075 (Oct. 28, 2009) ( 2009 CARE Order ) (dismissing complaint for failure to provide any factual support for the allegations raised in its complaint). 6 Citizens Energy Task Force and Save Our Unique Lands v. Midwest Reliability Organization, et al., 144 FERC 61,066 at P 39 (July 3, 2013) ( Citizens Energy Order ) (dismissing complaint for failing to set forth, at a minimum, the specific provision that is at issue and provide some explanation as to how the Respondent s alleged action or inaction caused the violation). 7 Complaint at 2 (EDF stated Interconnection Customers in MISO, SPP and PJM have no idea what coordination means because of the lack of detail in the Tariffs and JOAs but does not cite to Order No. 2003 for support.). 2

EDF cites to the Commission s transmission planning principles for support. 8 Nonetheless EDF requests that the Commission find, inter alia, that the PJM Tariff and MISO-PJM JOA are no longer just and reasonable and are unduly discriminatory and preferential and order the RTOs to file tariff and JOA revisions. While EDF proffers no basis for such allegations, at best they are premature and more appropriately considered in the GIP Reform NOPR currently outstanding before the Commission. As will be demonstrated below, such allegations lack any facts relative to PJM that support EDF s assertions that PJM, as an Affected System, is responsible for MISO s delay in issuing its system impact studies or that PJM and MISO have not coordinated under their respective tariffs or MISO-PJM JOA since MISO adopted its new Generator Interconnection Procedures ( GIP ) 9 or that the PJM Tariff or the MISO-PJM JOA lack the detail required under Order No. 2003. Additionally, EDF fails to identify any applicable statutory and regulatory requirements PJM has allegedly violated. Despite these basic deficiencies, EDF nonetheless requests that the Commission find, among other things, that the PJM Tariff and MISO-PJM JOA are no longer 8 In support of its transparency argument, EDF points to Order No. 890. Complaint at 2. While transparency is one of the nine transmission planning principles detailed in Order No. 890, it is specific to transmission planning not generator interconnections. In fact under Order No. 1000, which adopted the Order No. 890 transmission planning principles, the Commission made clear that issues related to the generator interconnection process were outside the scope of the Order No. 1000. In an effort to garner further support for its position, EDF also relies on the Commission s findings in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 161 FERC 61,005 at P 40 (2017), which regards Commission acceptance of a new category of interregional transmission planning projects proposed by PJM and MISO called Targeted Market Efficiency Projects ( TMEPs ). TMEPs are detailed in the MISO-PJM JOA at 9.3.7.2(c) and 9.4.4.1.5 under interregional planning, not generator interconnection projects. See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., TMEP Filings, Docket Nos. ER17-718-000, et al. (Dec. 30, 2016), which filings were accepted by Commission subject to compliance by Order dated October 3, 2017. See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al., 161 FERC 61,005 (Oct. 3, 2017). The only support EDF could find relevant to generator interconnections was in the Commission s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NOPR ) for reform of generator interconnection procedures and agreements, which is currently pending before the Commission in Docket No. RM17-8-000. Complaint at 2-3, n. 4 (citing to Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM17-8-000 at P 29 (Dec. 15, 2016) ( GIP Reform NOPR )). 9 Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 158 FERC 61,033 (Jan. 3, 2017) (accepting MISO GIP Filing, effective January 4, 2017); see also, Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., MISO GIP Filing, Docket No. 17-156-000 (Oct. 21, 2016) ( MISO GIP Filing ). 3

just and reasonable and are unduly discriminatory and preferential and order the RTOs to file tariff and JOA revisions. II. MOTION TO DISMISS The Commission should dismiss the Complaint against PJM as patently deficient under Rule 206 of the Commission s Rules and Regulations, 10 which requires that all pleadings contain a basis in fact and law for the complainant s position and specific relief sought. 11 Specifically, EDF: Makes no attempt to clearly identify any statute, rule, order, or other law administered by the Commission that PJM has violated; 12 Fails to provide any relevant facts as to how PJM s actions or inactions violated applicable statutory or regulatory requirements; 13 Fails to state that the issues presented are pending in an existing Commission rulemaking proceeding in which EDF is a party or to provide an explanation why timely resolution cannot be achieved in that forum; 14 and EDF fails to include any documents or affidavits that support the facts in the Complaint. 15 EDF has not provided PJM with adequate information to know the violations of which it is being accused. Nor has EDF given the Commission any support in fact or law for a finding of a violation against PJM. In fact, the allegations of potential harm are premature, speculative, and 10 18 C.F.R. 385.206 (2017) (A complaint must [c]learly identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements ). 11 See Nantahala Power & Light Co., 19 FERC 61,152, at 61,276 (1982) (finding that [T]he burden of proof in a [Section] 206 complaint proceeding is on the complainant. The burden consists of coming forward with a prima facie case.). 12 18 C.F.R. 385.206(b)(1) (requiring complaint clearly identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements). 13 Id. (b)(2) (requiring complaint explain how the action or inaction violates applicable statutory standards or regulatory requirements). 14 Id. (b)(6) (requiring complaint state whether the issues presented are pending in an existing Commission proceeding). 15 Id. (b)(8) (requiring complaint includes all documents that support the facts in the complaint in possession of, or otherwise attainable by, the complainant, including, but not limited to contracts and affidavits). 4

unsupported and the Complaint fails to demonstrate that any provisions of PJM s existing Tariff or MISO-PJM s existing JOA are unjust and unreasonable. Under such circumstances, the Commission must dismiss the Complaint against PJM. 16 In the past the Commission has dismissed similarly deficient complaints. 17 The Commission should take such action here as well. A. There is No Factual Basis for the Complaint Against PJM EDF provides no adequate proffer of evidence against PJM in its Complaint to meet the required burden. 18 The Complaint fails to identify any applicable statutory and regulatory requirements PJM has allegedly violated and, in fact, the one reference to Order No. 890 is not applicable to Commission s generator interconnection process. 19 Nor does the Complaint show how PJM has actually violated any statute, rule, order, or policy administered by the Commission. Nor does EDF provide any documents or affidavits specific to PJM. 20 The only facts provided regard specific circumstances between MISO and SPP. As for PJM, EDF makes passing remarks such as [a] similar example from recent MISO and PJM studies could be provided... [h]owever, Complainant will not burden the Commission by adding similar MISO- 16 Energy Management Corporation v. Peoples Gas System, Inc., 78 FERC 61,044 at 5 (Jan. 17, 1997) (dismissing complaint for failing to provide any concrete facts supporting the alleged wrongdoing, any specificity regarding the regulation or statute violated, and any harm to the complainant, or any request for relief.). 17 Sunrise Energy Co. v. Transwestern Pipeline Co., 62 FERC 61,087 at 10-11 (1993) (dismissing one of the Complainant s allegations as being wholly unsupported by any allegation of fact..., and dismissed another, stating that the Commission cannot be expected to create the support for a claim by drawing a chain of unsupported inferences. ). 18 CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 142 FERC 61,143 at PP 2, 18 (2013) ( 2013 CARE Order ); Illinois Mun. Electric Agency v. Cent. Illinois Publ. Serv. Co., 76 FERC 61,084, at 61,482 (1996) ( Illinois Municipal Electric Agency Order ) (warning [complainant] must make an adequate proffer of evidence, including pertinent information and analysis to support its claims. ). 19 See, supra, 3, n. 8. 20 See Complaint, Attachments 1-A, 1-B and 1-C. 5

PJM facts to this Complaint. 21 Such a cavalier approach to satisfying Rule 206 should not be tolerated by the Commission. 22 Moreover, a closer look at the PJM facts reveals that the similar recent event relied upon by EDF actually occurred in 2013, well before MISO s GIP reform went into effect in February 2017. In fact, the incident referred to by EDF 23 was addressed and resolved by the Commission in the context of the NIPSCO Complaint docket by revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA, as directed and accepted by the Commission. 24 Other examples implicating PJM include vague references such as DPP Phase 2 is delayed due to delay in modeling data exchange between MISO and PJM causing delays in completion of Affected System Study 25 and the Feb 2016 East studies are delayed because Waiting on Affected System Study results. 26 Thus, the 21 Id., at 4. 22 The Complaint fails to meet the minimum requirements applicable under the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure by including no more than unsubstantiated allegations without an adequate proffer of evidence including pertinent information and analysis to support its claims. See e.g., 2013 CARE Order at P 2; Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc., (CARE) and Barbara Durkin v. Nat l Grid, Cape Wind, and the Mass. Dep t of Pub. Util., 137 FERC 61,113, at PP 2, 31-32 (2011) ( 2011 CARE Order ); and Illinois Municipal Electric Agency Order, at 61,482. 23 Complaint at 4, n. 5. 24 See Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Serv. Operator, Inc., et al., 155 FERC 61,053 at P 184 and 185 (Apr. 21, 2016) (denying Generator Group s [Generator Group includes Hoosier Wind Project, LLC (a subsidiary of EDF Renewable Energy, Inc.)] suggestion that MISO and PJM apply the same standards in their respective interconnection studies, the establishment of a common queue between MISO and PJM, or that MISO and PJM sync up their study timelines; and finding that the currently existing provisions of the JOA related to modeling and interconnection studies, when appropriately adhered to, are just and reasonable. However, to provide transparency and more clarity regarding the interconnection coordination requirements in the MISO-PJM JOA, MISO and PJM were directed to submit revisions to the JOA to include the description of the interconnection coordination procedures that are currently in the MISO and PJM business practice manuals. ). See also, Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Midcontinent Indep. Serv. Operator, Inc., et al., 158 FERC 61,049 at P 81 (Jan. 19, 2017) (finding that the revisions to the MISO-PJM JOA satisfy the Commission s directive with respect to interconnection coordination procedures. 25 Complaint at 6. 26 Id.; see also, Id., n. 10 (In support of this assertion, EDF cites to Item 02b from IPTF meeting on October 17, 2017. However, the document cannot be found at the link provided). See also, Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., Motion to Lodge, Reopen the Record and for Expedited Review of EDF Renewable Energy, Inc., E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., and Tradewind Energy, Inc., Docket No. ER17-156-000 at 6, n. 12 (Sept. 5, 2017) ( Motion to Reopen ) (stating EDF, et al., are aware that Affected Systems and transmission owner delay have contributed to MISO s study delays, but cannot provide details to help the Commission assess the issue. ). 6

Complaint is void of any details supporting the argument that PJM is the cause for the delay. In fact, EDF previously acknowledged that it was aware that study results were delayed because MISO included faulty data for [PJM] in its models. 27 Nonetheless, EDF attempts to implicate PJM stating in both the GIP docket, as well as the Complaint, that MISO informed the Commission that one of the reasons for the delay was it had difficulty with Affected System. 28 Once again, EDF s vague assertions are not supported in the Complaint by any context such as documents, affidavits or other materials as to where, when and by whom such statement was made. 29 Upon examination of the source of the statements cited to by EDF, there are no specifics pointing to PJM. 30 Most confusing is that while EDF relies on allegations like MISO informed the Commission that one of the reasons for the delay was it had difficulty with Affected System, to support its burden of proof under this Complaint against PJM, EDF objected to this same statement made by MISO in the MISO GIP docket stating it was a baseless generalization that cannot be relied upon as fact. 31 Yet, EDF uses this unverified fact to support its Complaint. 27 Motion to Reopen at 10, n. 23 (Sept. 5, 2017). 28 Complaint at 30 (asserting without context that [t]he same holds true for PJM, where MISO reported in October that studies for the Central and East sub-regions are delayed because of PJM Affected System issues. ) 29 See 18 C.F.R. 385.206(b)(8). 30 Specifically, the referenced language states: The DPP I study for this group took 76 more days because of the non-trivial nature of the studies. MISO spent more time coordinating study results with affected Transmission Owners (including Affected Systems) to ensure that the right set of transmission upgrades were identified to mitigate the issues caused by the study projects. The Affected System Studies by Southwest Power Pool were also delayed because of the non-trivial nature of the studies. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Answer of MISO in Opposition to Motion to Lodge, Reopen the Record and For Expedited Review of Wind Generation Developers, Docket No. ER17-156-000 at 19 (Sept. 20, 2017). 31 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of Wind Generation Developers, Docket No. ER17-156-000 at 7 (Oct. 5, 2017) (arguing that MISO provides not a single word of information in its answer. MISO has provided no information through the IPTF either. Thus, it remains a mystery. This is not just and reasonable (emphasis added)). 7

B. EDF Has Failed to Specify a Violation The Complaint fails to identify any statute, regulation, order or Commission policy PJM has allegedly violated. Nor has EDF detailed how PJM s actions or inactions delayed MISO s ability to timely complete its System Impact Studies. In fact, EDF has failed to demonstrate how it is harmed by PJM as EDF points to no active interconnection project in the PJM [or the MISO] study queue that requires an affected system study that is delayed in the affected system study process. Thus, the Complaint fails to meet even the minimal requirements set forth in Rule 206 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 32 While under some scenarios the Commission might be tempted to relax its minimal standards, in the instant case EDF s Complaint fails to set forth any provision of Order No. 2003 or any other Commission order relative to coordination of Affected System studies under the Commission s generator interconnection rules to support its allegations. Nor does EDF provide any explanation as to how PJM s alleged action or inaction caused a violation of the Commission s pro forma LGIP or LGIA. Given that EDF did not cite to any provisions of Order No. 2003 to support its Complaint because the relief sought is outside the bounds of what is required under Order No. 2003 or any other order issued by the Commission relative to coordination of Affected System studies, the Commission should dismiss the Complaint. 32 See supra, Citizens Energy Order at 1, n. 4. See also, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Inc. v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., 151 FERC 61,079 at P 62 (Apr. 30, 2015) (Commission denied complaint finding that it does not point to any particular requirement that respondent allegedly violated. Nor does complainant cite to any specific provision that would require respondents to connect their utility systems with neighboring utilities because there is no provision in Order No. 1000 requiring interconnection of neighboring transmission facilities.). 8

C. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because the Issues Raised Here Have Been Raised by EDF in the Outstanding GIP Reform NOPR and Have Been Addressed and Rejected by the Commission in MISO s GIP Filing, Which is Currently Pending on Rehearing. Many of the issues raised by EDF are currently under consideration in two other dockets. The first is the Commission s notice of proposed rulemaking for reform of generator interconnection procedures and agreements in Docket No. RM17-8-000. 33 While EDF attempts to downplay the relevance of the GIP Reform NOPR, that is the forum in which changes to the Commission s LGIP should be considered. Under the GIP Reform NOPR, EDF filed joint comments with two other generators, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC and Enel Green Power North America, Inc., acknowledging that guidelines (i.e., specific GIP language) for Affected System analysis and coordination, as well as study requirements and associated timelines, are not currently required but are needed. 34 Surprisingly, the EDF s comments to the GIP Reform NOPR and proposed revisions to the Commission s pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures ( LGIP ), look exactly like the requirements EDF claims PJM and MISO violated in their Tariffs and JOA under this Complaint. Nevertheless, EDF states that the GIP Reform NOPR has no impact here because (i) in the NOPR, the Commission has only sought information about whether there is a need; 35 (ii) in EDF s opinion there is an existing problem with the current Tariff and JOA provisions of MISO, SPP and PJM; and (iii) such coordination issues are causing queue processing delays. 36 It is hard to reconcile how the GIP Reform NOPR has no impact here. In its comments to the GIP 33 Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. RM17-8-000 (2016) ( GIP Reform NOPR ). 34 Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements, Comments of EDF Renewable Energy, Inc., E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC and Enel Green Power North America, Inc., Docket No. RM17-8-000 at 36-40 (Apr. 13, 2017) ( EDF s NOPR Comments ). 35 Complaint at 33. 36 Id., at 33 34. 9

Reform NOPR, EDF specifically used the Affected System process between PJM and MISO as a prime example to make its point. 37 Specifically, EDF noted that MISO had recently significantly revamped its GIP process and argued that no forethought was given to how that coordination will occur and whether PJM even has the resources to respond by when MISO needs Affected System input. 38 EDF further stated that [t]his is a prime example of why there must be a requirement for the Transmission Provider and Affected System to have coordinated procedures in place whether they are in a JOA or other agreement. 39 Obviously, this comment would not have been necessary if such a requirement existed today. But it does not. Therefore, absent Commission ruling in the GIP Reform NOPR docket, the NOPR and comments submitted are just proposals. 40 Thus, the GIP Reform NOPR certainly does have an impact here and until the Commission issues its final rule, EDF s alleged violations against PJM are purely speculative as to what EDF believes should be. Given the outstanding GIP Reform NOPR and the issues raised herein, this Complaint is not ripe for review. Rather, PJM urges that the Commission either address these issues in the context of the pending GIP Reform NOPR or allow the RTOs to 37 EDF s NOPR Comments at 38. 38 Id. (EDF even acknowledged that this same concern was brought to the Commission s attention, but MISO s revamped GIP was accepted nonetheless. ). 39 Id., at 38 39. 40 See, e.g., Seneca Power Partners, L.P. V. New York Indep. System Operator, Inc., 138 FERC 61,207 (Mar. 22, 2012) (dismissing complaint alleging the NYISO improperly determined a minimum run time for a 58 MW gasfired generation facility as premature when evidence showed that NYISO had discussed a reduction in the minimum run time, but had not yet changed the minimum run time); Chevron Products Co. v. SFPP, L.P., 138 FERC 61,115 (Feb. 16, 2012) (dismissing complaint requesting that the Commission investigate the possibility that SFPP could increase its rates as premature, holding that the justness and reasonableness of a possible, future index-based rate increase is not ripe for Commission review until SFPP submits a tariff filing proposing to charge such rates); Louisiana Pub. Serv. Commission v. Energy Corp., et al., 132 FERC 61,104 (Aug. 4, 2010) (dismissing complaint seeking to challenge the inclusion of costs associated with the cancellation of a repowering project in rates as premature when a final decision on the cancellation of the project had yet to be approved). 10

address them in their stakeholder processes rather than resolve them in a contested proceeding at the Commission. 41 Additionally, EDF attempts to distance itself from its rehearing request filed in MISO s GIP Filing docket claiming that its arguments in that docket are limited to whether MISO s proposed GIP is just and reasonable and the Commission s decision comports with the requirements of administrative law. In EDF s opinion, this Complaint is broader because it addresses specific disclosure and detail coordination and cost allocation items in the SPP, MISO and PJM Tariffs and JOAs that need to be fixed regardless of the outcome of the pending rehearing request in Docket No. ER17-156-000. 42 Again, close examination of the Complaint reveals that EDF has presented no specifics in fact or law that warrants a finding against PJM that its tariff or the MISO-PJM JOA is unjust or unreasonable or unduly discriminatory or preferential because there are no facts or law to support such assertions. Accordingly, given such flagrant deficiencies, this Commission should dismiss the Complaint against PJM. III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD POSTPONE THE ANSWER DATE In view of the foregoing, PJM further moves that the Commission postpone the date upon which its answer to the Complaint would otherwise be due until after the Commission acts on PJM s motion to dismiss. 43 Good cause for postponing PJM s answer date is present here. PJM has moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a valid claim upon which the Commission may act. As the need for an answer would be rendered moot if the Commission grants PJM s motion to dismiss, there is no reason for PJM to submit an answer at this time. 41 CSOLAR IV South, LLC, et al. v. California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 142 FERC 61,250 at P 45 (Mar. 2013). 42 Complaint at 34. 43 18 C.F.R. 385.2008(a) ( the time by which any person is required or allowed to act... may be extended by the decisional authority for good cause, upon a motion made before the expiration of the period prescribed.... ). 11

Postponing an answer date under these circumstances is consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and it would avoid wasteful utilization of PJM and Commission resources. 44 IV. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS Correspondence and communications with respect to this filing should be sent to the following persons: Craig Glazer Vice President Federal Government Policy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 2750 Monroe Blvd. Washington, D.C. 20005 Audubon, PA 19403 Ph: (202) 423-4743 Ph: (610) 666-8248 Pauline Foley Associate General Counsel PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Fax: (202) 393-7741 Fax: (610) 666-4281 craig.glazer@pjm.com pauline.foley@pjm.com V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should dismiss the Complaint against PJM with prejudice for failing to provide any credible evidence in fact or law upon which to form the 44 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A) (providing that serving a motion to dismiss defers the time for an answer to 14 days after notice of the court s action). The Commission can look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance. See, e.g., Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 103 FERC 61,123, at P 19 (2003) ( [T]he Commission may look to the... Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance. ); KN Energy, Inc., 26 FERC 63,068, at 65,264 (1984) ( The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not binding on the Commission, but they are convenient and reasonable guides to sensible and fair procedures. ); Operation Overcharge v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 10 FERC 61,100, at 61,211 (1980) ( The Federal Rules do not, of course, control our procedures under the Federal Power Act,... we can, however, look to the standards of the Rules for assistance.... ). 12

basis for a valid claim against PJM and postpone the date upon which an answer to the Complaint otherwise would be due by PJM. Respectfully submitted, By: Pauline Foley Associate General Counsel PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Craig Glazer Vice President Federal Government Policy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 1200 G Street, NW, Suite 600 2750 Monroe Blvd. Washington, DC 20005 Audubon, PA 19403 Ph: (202) 423-4743 Ph: (610) 666-8248 Fax: (202) 393-7741 Fax: (610) 666-4281 craig.glazer@pjm.com pauline.foley@pjm.com Counsel for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C Dated: November 28, 2017 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have had served this day the foregoing document on those parties on the official Service List compiled by the Secretary in these proceedings. Dated at Audubon, Pennsylvania this 28 th day of November, 2017. Pauline Foley Assistant General Counsel PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 2750 Monroe Blvd. Audubon, PA 19403 Ph: (610) 666-8248 pauline.foley@pjm.com 14