PJM, stakeholders vet IMM proposal at special MRC


At a special session of the Markets & Reliability Committee Tuesday, PJM and stakeholders had a thorough review and vetting of a proposal that was recently endorsed by the Capacity Construct/Public Policy Senior Task Force.

The proposal from Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, is called extended Minimum Offer Price Rule and posits that non-market subsidies for existing generators are not consistent with competitive market outcomes. It extends the MOPR concept to existing generation resources, while providing exemptions for certain state-sponsored Renewable Portfolio Standards programs and for certain public power resources.

At the top of the meeting, Stu Bresler, senior vice president – Markets and Operations, briefed stakeholders on PJM’s forthcoming actions following the Federal Energy Regulation Commission’s order in the remand proceeding for the Minimum Offer Price Rule.

On the evening of Dec. 8, the FERC rejected PJM’s December 2012 MOPR filing. This reinstates the MOPR as it existed prior to the 2012 filing. The FERC also required PJM to make a compliance filing in 30 days.

PJM will make that compliance filing after it examines the exact tariff language, Bresler said. He added that PJM does not plan to make a separate 205 filing at this time.

“As evidenced today, we are revisiting the entire MOPR concept,” said Bresler. “We could have a filing [on the task force proposal] occur as soon as February. We don’t want a situation where we have the 205 [PJM] filing, followed [by] another one right away. We’ll see what comes out of this process, see what is filed at the end of this.”

The commission’s order means only the unit-specific exemption process will be available for the February incremental auction. The two categorical MOPR exemptions – self-supply and competitive entry – will not. In addition, there will be only one year of mitigation, not three.

Bresler also added that, while PJM facilitated the meeting and assisted in developing comments and feedback to ensure consistency with the proposal voted out of the task force, stakeholders were not to interpret those actions as support for the IMM proposal.

Stakeholders went through the tariff revisions associated with the proposal section-by-section to ensure that they truly reflected the proposal passed by the task force.

Some stakeholders were particularly diligent in assuring the posted language aligned with what the senior task force endorsed. If stakeholders wish to change the language – or believe that the vetted language from the Thursday meeting does not correctly reflect the task force proposal – they can propose a friendly amendment to be posted with the materials for the Dec. 21 MRC.

PJM has posted the updated tariff language.