The Members Committee took steps to prepare for the 2016/17 delivery year at the March 31 meeting in approving definitions for operating parameters and performance assessment hour ramp rates.
In order to be in place for the 2016/2017 delivery year, which starts June 1, PJM planned to file necessary changes with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by March 31, with an effective date of May 31.
The performance assessment hour ramp rate is a proposal to recognize how units follow PJM dispatch instructions during performance assessment hours.
PJM wants to update ramp rates by April 20 (Capacity Performance generators) and May 31 (non-Capacity Performance generators) to reflect actual historical ramp rate performances. The ramp rates’ input on April 20 will be used as a comparison during hot/cold weather alerts to ensure units continue to reflect their actual historical ramp rate performance.
The updated operating parameter definitions clarify start-up time language, among other topics. There were two proposals – an original operating parameter definition package and a stakeholder alternate at the March 9 Market Implementation Committee. Because of truncated voting, the MRC did not vote on the alternate.
PJM reaffirmed its commitment to working with stakeholders on refining the language in both proposals so there can be a consensus on more permanent language in 2017.
- Endorsed proposed revisions to the tariff, operating agreement and the Reliability Assurance Agreement related to updated definitions and markets governing documents.
- Endorsed a separate set of definition revisions as part of the consent agenda.
- Endorsed revisions to the tariff and operating agreement on the definition of “counterparty.”
- Postponed action on an amendment on the definition of capacity import limit.
Following the MC meeting, there was a presentation by the Independent Market Monitor on the State of the PJM Market report.
Common Meeting Day
Members also debated the common meeting day of the Markets and Reliability Committee and the Members Committee.
The debate centered on the timing of the MC meeting, which follows the MRC during most months of the year. Prior to 2012, the meetings were held on separate days, one week apart.
Some members were concerned with preserving the time between the MRC and the MC to discuss proposals and other stakeholder issues. The committee voted to flex the end time of the MRC and start time of the MC.