The Political Complexity of Regional Electricity Policy Formation

Table 9

Top fifteen voters in the PJM voting network based on node degree, betweenness centrality, and mixing parameter. The figures in the % column represent the frequency with which each voter voted with the consumer coalition on contentious rule changes in PJM.

Degree		Betweenness Centrality		Mixing parameter
Brookfield Energy Marketing LP	38%	Brookfield Energy Marketing LP	38%	Direct Energy Business, LLC	50%
Potomac Electric Power Company	40%	Potomac Electric Power Company	40%	Enerwise Global Technologies, Inc	33%
PBF Power Marketing LLC	40%	PBF Power Marketing LLC	40%	MidAtlantic Power Partners, LLC	50%
Enerwise Global Technologies, Inc	33%	TransCanada Power Marketing Ltd	25%	Iron Mountain Generation LLC	33%
Direct Energy Business, LLC	50%	Central Virginia Electric Cooperative	100%	West Deptford Energy, LLC	33%
Iron Mountain Generation LLC	33%	Virginia Electric & Power Company	0%	Black Oak Energy, LLC	50%
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative	100%	Energy Consulting Services, LLC	100%	Apple Group, LLC	33%
West Deptford Energy, LLC	33%	Invenergy LLC	0%	Dyon, LLC	33%
Apple Group, LLC	33%	Enerwise Global Technologies, Inc	33%	E Minus LLC	33%
Dyon, LLC	33%	Direct Energy Business, LLC	50%	Great Bay Energy I, LLC	33%
E Minus LLC	33%	Galt Power Inc	100%	Hexis Energy Trading, LLC	33%
Great Bay Energy I, LLC	33%	Borough of Lavallette, New Jersey	100%	Mac Trading, Inc	33%
Hexis Energy Trading, LLC	33%	The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania	100%	Monterey MA, LLC	33%
Mac Trading, Inc	33%	Borough of Madison, New Jersey	100%	Pure Energy, Inc	33%
Monterey MA, LLC	33%	Borough of Milltown, New Jersey	100%	BJ Energy, LLC	33%