Performance risk
Elliott is a boundary condition, not a validation badge.
PJM reported roughly 46 GW of forced outages and 57 GW total unavailable at the December 24, 2022 morning peak. Load management delivered about 3.5 GW, and PJM did not shed firm load.
Our replay is narrower. It uses the observed 72-hour PJM load window and an assumed outage ramp peaking at 34 GW above normal unavailability. It asks what conditions eliminate modeled shortfalls before additional emergency action. It does not recreate operator dispatch.
Counterfactual ledger
Firm capability and DC flexibility work together.
| Added DC | New firm | DC flex | Screen hours | Max gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 GW | 0 GW | 0% | 0 | 0.0 GW |
| 15 GW | 0 GW | 0% | 15 | 5.6 GW |
| 30 GW | 0 GW | 0% | 31 | 20.6 GW |
| 30 GW | 20 GW | 0% | 6 | 2.6 GW |
| 30 GW | 20 GW | 20% | 0 | 0.0 GW |
Deliverability risk
System capacity is not Dominion capacity.
PJM's dated 2027/28 planning parameters gave the Dominion LDA a 27.5 GW UCAP reliability requirement and 6.4 GW Capacity Emergency Transfer Limit. PJM said the CETL/CETO ratio was below one under certain emergency conditions.
If 70% of a hypothetical 30 GW system-wide addition were assigned to Dominion while local accredited resources and transfer capability did not change, the capacity arithmetic would add a 21.0 GW local requirement gap. That is an assumption stress—not a load forecast and not zonal dispatch.
Decision consequence: a project needs a current, project-specific transmission and capacity study. A system-wide surplus, if one existed, would not prove deliverability into Northern Virginia.