PSC debate weighs exemptions, waivers and public-notice rules for front-of-meter storage

Rulemaking participants spent substantial time debating exemptions, waiver procedures, and stakeholder engagement requirements for front-of‑meter energy storage devices.

Work group staff proposed regulatory language allowing exemptions from some requirements and a waiver process for site- or project‑specific circumstances; staff recommended clarifying language to state exemptions apply "except to the extent exempted under" the commission’s exemption provision (recorded as 20.50.14.07(g) in the draft). Andrea Harper, representing Pepco Holdings on behalf of the joint Exelon utilities, urged retaining phrasing that preserves an explicit CPCN exemption, saying on the record: "There is in 7 g s there is an express exemption for storage devices that have gone through an actual CPCN. And when we read this and it excludes from duplicative requirements in this regulation ... that's really important because ... those storage devices that went through the CPCN process would also have to go through this process even if they've already had duplicative examination in the CPCN process." Harper spelled her name for the record as "Andrea Harper."

The Office of People's Counsel (OPC) and other stakeholders argued for a robust stakeholder engagement requirement and opposed a broad, undefined "blanket" exemption; Mark Sheebas (OPC) told commissioners that blanket exemptions would create ambiguity and urged case‑by‑case review. After discussion the commission directed staff to replace the word "blanket" with language making clear requests are reviewed under the commission’s exemption/waiver process.

Specific points discussed - Preexisting devices and CPCN exemptions: The draft would allow devices that already went through a CPCN process to avoid duplicative requirements; utilities asked that the regulations preserve that exemption while staff suggested referencing the specific exemption rule to avoid ambiguity. - Waiver vs. exemption terminology: The record shows agreement to distinguish waivers (case‑by‑case relief the commission can grant) from automatic exemptions (for example, those devices already cleared via CPCN), and to use consistent language across several provisions. - Thresholds and bundling: Developers asked for the ability to bundle multiple small projects (generally described by participants as under 20 MWh per site) and to limit broad notification radii in dense urban settings; one developer recommended a notification radius as small as 0.25 miles in urban areas to reduce administrative burden. Commissioners and utilities expressed concern about gaming and emphasized the importance of community notice and environmental‑justice considerations. - Notification radius and practical flexibility: The draft regulatory standard inherited a 1‑mile urban / 3‑mile rural notification approach from CPCN practice, and commissioners discussed building flexibility into the waiver process so applicants could seek a partial waiver of the notification radius with justification.

Why it matters: stakeholder engagement, siting, and exemption rules determine how many small storage projects will face local notice and commission review, how quickly developers can deploy projects, and how communities receive notice of nearby storage facilities. Utilities said exemptions or streamlined review for some projects reduce duplicative processes; consumer advocates and commissioners emphasized community notification and the need to preserve opportunity for local input.

Outcome on the record: Commissioners and stakeholders agreed to edits that remove the word "blanket" from the draft exemption language, to substitute references to the specific exemption rule where appropriate, and to treat many of these issues through a defined exemption/waiver process. The subject remains open for comment during the notice period and for refinement after further operating experience.

Ending: The draft text incorporating the agreed edits will be published for comment alongside the rest of the RM 85 package; stakeholders asked that waiver language be clear about when a reduced notification approach is appropriate and that exemptions preserving CPCN determinations remain explicit in the text.