The key to the Market Implementation Committee meeting on Wednesday was defining terms accurately.
The committee spent part of the day working through short-term operating parameter definition language and establishing the groundwork for crafting and clarifying those definitions in the longer term.
And, in the middle, the committee looked at – and endorsed – language and definition changes in Manual 11: Energy and Ancillary Services, covering both Capacity Performance and the Day-Ahead Market Timeline.
Operation Parameter Definitions
PJM presented operating parameter definitions that clarified start-up time language, among other topics. Stakeholders then presented further modifications of the definitions. After a lengthy discussion, the committee worked the issue through early afternoon and presented definition packages for a vote.
The committee first passed an amended problem statement, which sets June 1, 2017, as the due date for a long-term language clarification.
The MIC then passed both the original operating parameter definition package and the stakeholder alternate. Both will be presented for endorsement at the Markets and Reliability Committee on March 31. Because of truncated voting, if the original definitions pass at the MRC, there will be no votes on the alternative.
Auction-Specific Bilateral Transactions
The committee approved a problem statement and issue charge on auction-specific bilateral transactions. Those are bilateral transactions between two PJM market participants for the purchase and sale of capacity that has cleared a Reliability Pricing Model auction, but performance in the delivery year has not started.
This allows for the sale of a specified megawatt amount of capacity from a capacity market seller for a specific generation capacity resource that has cleared a RPM Auction to a buyer, who obtains the rights and title to the cleared capacity. This buyer, in turn, becomes the new capacity market seller of this cleared capacity to PJM Settlement and, accordingly, receives the revenues associated with the cleared capacity directly from PJM Settlement. The seller in the transaction retains the performance obligation.
After stakeholders raised questions about the transactions prompted by the new Capacity Performance construct, PJM reviewed its tariff to determine how to address the questions and concluded its current language does not clearly address several important details related to bonus payments and replacement transactions in light of the indemnification provision in these transactions.
Other MIC action
|Endorsements||Update to Manual 6: Financial Transmission Rights|
|Modifications to regional transmission and energy scheduling practices affecting the PJM Day-Ahead Market and reliability unit commitment timeline|
|First reads||Proposed changes for demand response emergency energy settlement measurement and verification process|
|Problem statement and issue charge regarding spot-in transmission service for imports from New York ISO|
|Informational updates||FERC NOPR: Offer caps in the markets operated by regional transmission organizations and independent system operators|
|Inter-regional coordination efforts with MISO|
|Failed||Two financial transmission rights ownership disclosure packages|