Stakeholders Vet Complex Issues at July MIC

A number of complex issues, such as Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 825 on shortage pricing, intraday offers and energy efficiency resources, topped the agenda at the July 12 Markets Implementation Committee meeting.

Stakeholders engaged in extended discussion, for example, on PJM’s proposed manual revisions for intraday offers and Monitoring Analytics’ comments on the revisions.

 Lisa Morelli, manager – Real-time Market Operations, led the dialogue on the suggested changes. These changes include defining the periods following the close of the day-ahead market when offers can be updated for use in real time and defining the rules for opting out of the ability to submit offer updates intraday.

Morelli also presented PJM’s examination of data related to transient shortage pricing implementation. PJM reviewed the information, at stakeholder request, after members questioned the consistency of PJM’s implementation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 825 on transient shortages.

PJM said its compliance filing explicitly outlined the intent to price shortages based on the reserves measured in the real-time dispatch solution (which currently solves for a point in time 15 minutes in the future, and not the reserves measured in real-time).  Morelli said in an effort to better align the reserve values measured in the dispatch solution and those measured in real-time, PJM believes the real-time dispatch look-ahead interval can be reduced to 10 minutes (from 15 minutes) without impacting system reliability.

System conditions permitting, PJM intends to test the 10-minute value from 9 a.m. Monday, July 17 until 9 a.m. Monday, July 24. If analysis reveals no negative reliability impacts and reserve values are better aligned, PJM may choose to leave the look-ahead interval at 10 minutes.

In a related note, the FERC approved PJM’s changes on the two-step demand curve, which went into effect at midnight on July 12.

 Monitoring Analytics presented education and a first-read on a problem statement and issue charge for energy pricing point alignment (ensuring transactions are priced based on physical power flow). The independent market monitor also presented the first-read of a problem statement and issue charge on transmission penalty factors and the application of constraint relaxation.

Pete Langbein, manager – Demand Response Operations, discussed the problem statement and issue charge passed at the June MIC on the retail regulatory authority review of energy efficiency participation in capacity markets. Because of the issue’s complexity, education and solution discussion will be worked on through the Demand Response Subcommittee starting with the July 17 DRS meeting. There will be regular updates to the MIC.

Terri Esterly, senior lead engineer – Capacity Market Operations, educated  stakeholders on the energy efficiency participation process, including definitions of an EE resource, eligibility rules, and resource requirements, including measurement and verification and post-installation measurement and verification reports.

 PJM also provided an update on the fuel cost policy annual review, as well as templates for  variable operation and maintenance costs and emissions data. Deadline to submit data in both templates is Aug. 1.

Endorsements

  • Revisions to Manual 11: Energy & Ancillary Services and Manual 18: Capacity Market Revisions for Capacity Performance and Performance Assessment Hours
  • Governing Document Revisions to the Limitation on Claims

Other Committee Business 

  • First read of conforming revisions to Manual 11: Energy & Ancillary Services for PJM-MISO coordinated transaction scheduling (CTS)
  • First read of revisions to the regional transmission and energy scheduling practices document for PJM-MISO CTS
  • Update on Markets Gateway enhancements
  • Update on Order 831: Offer Caps (Aug. 7 and Sept. 15 training through Tech Change Forum)
  • Solutions packages review for annual revenue requirements for new black start units (Phase 2 – minimum tank suction levels), that was agreed to by stakeholders to be considered a first-read.