Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0011Report91 FR 28588; Docket No. AD26-7-000

FERC opens post-conference comment on PJM governance reforms, Docket No. AD26-7, with filings due Aug. 21

A notice at 91 FR 49430 asks for comments and a completed issues list after the Commission's July 23 technical conference on PJM's board, filing rights and stakeholder process, and says an Alternative Dispute Resolution forum will begin September 1.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
10 cited

Summary

The notice is one page long, and its operative sentence is short: “Comments must be submitted on or before Friday, August 21, 2026” [1]. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published it August 4, 2026, at 91 FR 49430 in Docket No. AD26-7-000, inviting post-conference comments after the July 23 technical conference on PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s governance and stakeholder processes [1]. Secretary Debbie-Anne A. Reese signed the notice on July 30, citing 16 U.S.C. 825h, and it says Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) talks will begin September 1 [1].

What the record shows

The notice describes the July 23 session as a “Chairman and Commissioner-led technical conference” aimed at “identifying and evaluating concrete, actionable reforms to improve PJM’s ability to address operational and market needs in a timely and efficient manner” [1]. It asks for three things:

  • comments on issues raised at the conference that “would benefit from further discussion” [1];
  • answers to the questions in the conference agenda [1];
  • a completed issues list, found in an appendix to the notice [1].

Commenters may cite material already in the docket but are told to avoid repeating it, and are encouraged to back their answers with “examples and evidence” [1]. The notice also asks them to stay off the merits of any contested proceeding pending before the Commission, citing 18 CFR 385.2201(b), the ex parte rule [1].

On the next step, the text is brief. “A future notice will issue in this proceeding establishing a forum for an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process that will commence on September 1, 2026,” it reads, and that later notice will cover registration, logistics and the “scope of issues and discussion topics informed by the record developed at the PJM technical conference” [1]. Staff contacts are Alandro Valdez of the Office of Technical Reporting and Economics and Emmett Barnes of the Office of the General Counsel, plus an ADR helpline [1].

The agenda questions the notice points back to were published June 10 at 91 FR 35198 [3]. Panel 1 covered “Board Authority, States’ Role, Filing Rights, and Document Architecture.” Its questions included how often the PJM Board acts unilaterally and whether that should change; how states, through the Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI), should interface with the Board; and how the division of Federal Power Act section 205 filing rights among PJM, the transmission owners and the Members Committee affects PJM’s ability to act quickly [3]. Panel 2 took up the stakeholder process: whether “sector-weighted voting and existing voting thresholds strike the right balance,” whether to expand “fast-path or time-bound review procedures,” and which committee structures “routinely contribute to delays” [3]. That panel was framed by the four principles from Order No. 719 (2008) for judging RTO responsiveness: inclusiveness, fairness in balancing diverse interests, representation of minority positions, and ongoing responsiveness [3].

Where it sits in the process

How did FERC’s PJM governance docket begin?

The Commission first noticed the conference in a May 12 notice published May 18 at 91 FR 28588, saying it would not discuss any specific pending proceeding [2]. The June notice added the agenda and a June 15 deadline for panelist self-nominations [3]. A July 2 notice named the panelists and required pre-filed statements by July 14 [4]. The invited speaker was Peter Lake, senior director of power at the White House National Energy Dominance Council [4]. Panelists included PJM President and CEO David Mills, Virginia State Corporation Commission Chair Kelsey Bagot, Pat Wood III of Hunt Energy Network, and representatives of AEP, LS Power, ISO New England, Vistra, PSEG, Constellation, Google, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel and the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition [4].

A July 16 notice, published July 21 at 91 FR 45802, listed eight pending proceedings that panelists and commenters should not address: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC v. PJM (EL25-20), EL25-49, EL26-67, ER26-455, ER26-751, ER26-1479 and ER26-1563, all PJM matters, and Virginia Electric and Power Company’s ER26-744 [5].

One of those dockets moved in the week the comment notice appeared. On August 3, Silver Run Electric, LLC asked the Commission to hold the show cause proceeding in Docket No. EL26-67-000 in abeyance for 90 days; a notice dated August 4 set answers to that motion for 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday, August 7 [6]. The notice does not describe the subject of the show cause order [6].

What comes after the August 21 deadline?

The ADR forum begins September 1 [1]. According to Utility Dive, Chairman Laura Swett said at the conference that PJM has until the end of September to agree on governance and stakeholder reforms and that, failing agreement, FERC would impose its own [7]. The Federal Register notices set no such deadline [1, 5].

What the record does not show

  • Any proposed text. The docket carries no draft tariff, Operating Agreement amendment or proposed rule. The notice asks questions; it does not propose answers [1].
  • The issues list. The appendix commenters must fill out is referenced in the notice but not printed in the Federal Register text [1].
  • How the ADR forum will work. Who may register, which issues are in scope, and how an outcome would reach the Commission are left to the future notice [1].
  • The legal path to an imposed outcome. Neither the notice nor the conference agenda says whether the Commission would act under Federal Power Act section 206, direct PJM to file, or rely on PJM’s own section 205 filings. The September deadline rests on the chairman’s remarks as reported [7].
  • Whether the pending dockets change the picture. The eight listed proceedings, including the EL26-67 show cause matter now facing an abeyance request, are kept out of this docket by the Commission’s own instruction [1, 5, 6].

Positions on the record

FERC. Swett said “PJM is facing a grave legitimacy crisis” and “market participants have lost confidence in PJM’s decision-making abilities,” adding that “some transmission owners are openly discussing leaving the RTO altogether,” Utility Dive reported [7]. Commissioner David LaCerte described “a cultural quagmire that they’ve developed” [7]. Holland & Knight reported that LaCerte asked whether the problem could be solved without making the stakeholder process advisory, given the board’s exposure to removal [9]. Commissioners showed interest in board independence, state participation and reallocated filing rights without endorsing any proposal, the firm wrote [9].

PJM. Mills said “any reform should strengthen PJM’s ability to act,” proposed “an augmented OPSI organization that speaks for the totality of the states,” and sought expanded section 205 filing rights, including for the Board on the Operating Agreement and transmission planning, according to PJM’s own account [8]. He said more than 50 GW of resources had cleared PJM’s planning process and signed interconnection agreements while the last two capacity auctions produced little new generation [8]. Asim Haque, PJM’s executive vice president for governmental and member services, said “I don’t think we can do business as usual” [7]. Holland & Knight reported that PJM proposed moving Operating Agreement Schedules 1 and 6 out of that agreement, which takes a two-thirds member vote to amend [9].

States. Bagot said states meet the PJM Board three times a year and those meetings are not productive, and Jacob Finkel of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s office described a proposal for two channels, a panel of state regulators and a separate panel of policymakers, Utility Dive reported [7].

Market participants and others. AEP’s Stacey Burbure backed a bigger state role, an advisory stakeholder structure and expanded PJM filing rights [7]. PSEG’s Jodi Moskowitz said sector-weighted voting “doesn’t sufficiently align voting interest with accountability” [7]. Independent Market Monitor Joseph Bowring said staff goals should center on the public interest [7], and Holland & Knight quoted the monitor as saying “speed to a bad decision is not the solution” [9]. Kent Chandler, an R Street Institute fellow who sat on the second panel, wrote that “PJM’s governance process is broken, but not irreparably so” and that it “can be fixed without the need for the Commission’s intervention” [4, 10]. His colleague Michael Giberson argued that “speeding the processes without addressing structural reforms settles the same distributional questions faster” [10].

Holland & Knight read the day as showing broad directional support for an advisory stakeholder model and for insulating the Board from removal, with disagreement over whether filing-rights changes or accountability reforms are the real fix [9]. Utility Dive cited the RTO Governance Research Network for the point that two sectors can combine to block a measure under PJM’s two-thirds sector-weighted voting [7]. Whether the August 21 comments narrow that disagreement before September 1 is the open question the docket now poses.

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When are post-conference comments due in FERC's PJM governance docket?
On or before Friday, August 21, 2026, filed in Docket No. AD26-7-000 [1]. Commenters are asked to fill out the issues list in the notice's appendix [1].
Is FERC proposing a rule on PJM governance?
No. The July 30 notice only invites comments after the July 23 technical conference and announces a dispute resolution forum [1].
When does the PJM governance dispute resolution process start?
September 1, 2026, according to the notice, which says a separate notice will give registration, logistics and scope details [1].
What happens if PJM stakeholders do not agree on governance reforms?
Chairman Laura Swett said FERC would impose its own reforms if no agreement is reached by the end of September, according to Utility Dive [7]. That statement does not appear in the Federal Register notices [1].
Can comments address pending PJM cases at FERC?
The Commission asks commenters not to argue the merits of contested pending proceedings [1]. Its July 16 notice listed eight such dockets, including EL25-20, EL25-49 and EL26-67 [5].

Note on sourcing

Docket No. AD26-7-000 is an administrative docket, not a rulemaking: the July 30 notice proposes no rule text, and nothing in it binds PJM. Chairman Swett's statement that the Commission would impose reforms if none are agreed by the end of September is reported by Utility Dive and does not appear in the Federal Register notices. Remarks at the July 23 conference are attributed to trade press, PJM's own news site and a law-firm summary; the transcript is sold by a private reporting service and is not part of this report. The appendix issues list that commenters must complete is referenced in the notice but is not reproduced in the Federal Register text. The details of the ADR forum, including its scope and registration, await a further Commission notice.

Sources

  1. PJM Governance and Stakeholder Reforms; Notice Requesting Post-Conference Comment, 91 FR 49430 (FR Doc. 2026-15781), Docket No. AD26-7-000Federal Register (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), August 4, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  2. PJM Governance and Stakeholder Reforms; Notice of Commission-Led Technical Conference, 91 FR 28588 (FR Doc. 2026-09924)Federal Register (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), May 18, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  3. PJM Governance and Stakeholder Reforms; Supplemental Notice of Commission-Led Technical Conference, 91 FR 35198 (FR Doc. 2026-11599)Federal Register (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), June 10, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  4. PJM Governance and Stakeholder Reforms; Second Supplemental Notice of Commission-Led Technical Conference, 91 FR 42188 (FR Doc. 2026-13773)Federal Register (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), July 8, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  5. PJM Governance and Stakeholder Reforms; Third Supplemental Notice of Commission-Led Technical Conference, 91 FR 45802 (FR Doc. 2026-14691)Federal Register (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), July 21, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  6. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.; Notice Establishing Answer Period, 91 FR 51171 (FR Doc. 2026-16175), Docket No. EL26-67-000Federal Register (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), August 7, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  7. FERC will impose reforms if PJM fails to adopt changes by September, chairman warnsUtility Dive, July 24, 2026 · utilitydive.com
  8. FERC Technical Conference Debates PJM Governance, Stakeholder ReformsPJM Inside Lines, July 24, 2026 · insidelines.pjm.com
  9. FERC Holds Conference to Consider Major PJM Governance ReformsHolland & Knight, July 28, 2026 · hklaw.com
  10. Statement on FERC techincal conference regarding PJM's governanceR Street Institute, July 23, 2026 · rstreet.org

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0031 · Floor order · 1 shared headingSenate order sets Nov. 9 cloture vote on motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, the vehicle for a permitting package
  2. No. 0030 · Report · 1 shared headingFERC opens scoping on Longboard LNG import terminal off Oʻahu, Docket No. PF26-10-000
  3. No. 0026 · Record of decision · 1 shared headingFERC staff issues final EIS for Sabine Pass Stage 5 LNG expansion, Docket No. CP24-75-001