Roundup: Demand Response, Market Efficiency Process Enhancement, Load Analysis

1346

At the July 16 meeting of the Demand Response Subcommittee, stakeholders looked at PJM’s proposed changes to how distributed energy resources information is managed in the demand response hub.

PJM is considering expanding how information is captured to provide additional visibility. This includes adding locational fields for generators and batteries that allow for more details. PJM believes that the proposed additional information will provide more transparency for distributed energy resources (DER) participating in demand response. That, in turn, will increase reporting data accuracy for reporting.

American Electric Power drove a discussion on recovering the administrative costs to electric distribution companies when reviewing and approving demand resource activity for the wholesale market. The issue could be the subject of a problem statement and issue charge in the future, according to AEP.

PJM presented several follow-ups to stakeholder information requests.

Jack O’Neill, Demand Response Operations, discussed 2018/19 daily deficiency charges where curtailment service providers could not cover capacity commitment with demand response registrations. Curtailment service providers had almost no deficiency charges (less than $300 in total).

A curtailment service provider is the entity responsible for demand response activity for electricity consumers in the PJM wholesale markets.

Andrea Yeaton, senior operations analyst, answered questions on duplicate registration processes. The discussion centered on what system/process changes were needed to help make the process more effective or whether stakeholders would like to submit an issue statement to change existing manual language.

Swapna Kanury, senior business analyst – Data Management, updated stakeholders on the files that are retiring as of Aug. 15 and file migration to Data Miner 2.

Market Efficiency Process Enhancement Task Force

In anticipation of presenting a first read to the Markets and Reliability Committee and Members Committee Webinar this week, the task force on July 20 reviewed language changes for manuals and the governing documents.

Brian Chmielewski, manager – Market Simulation , led the discussion for the proposed redline changes to the PJM Operating Agreement, Manual 14B: Region Transmission Planning Process and Manual 14F: Competitive Planning Process.

Chmielewski also briefly reviewed the Phase 1 Final Report, which includes overviews of the solution packages presented to the task force and the polling result.

Fundamental disagreements remain over how to model generator resources with facilities study agreements (FSAs) in the base case. These three packages offer three separate methodologies for FSA modeling, while all share common recommendations for fixing generator and transmission topology at the Reliability Transmission Expansion Plan year level for all simulation years.

If there is no direction from the Markets & Reliability Committee, the task force will begin work on Phase 2 at its August 17 meeting.

Load Analysis Subcommittee

PJM is asking members for feedback on several items that were reviewed at the July 18 meeting of the Load Analysis Subcommittee.

Members are asked to provide comments and questions by Aug. 20 regarding draft assumptions pertaining to the long-term forecast of distributed solar generation. PJM is trying to increase the transparency of that data, which will be used in the overall 2019 forecast.

In particular, members are advised to review the renewable portfolio standard and net energy metering policy for their state. New Jersey, for example, has an RPS goal of 50 percent by 2030, and the net energy metering policies in Ohio and Michigan call for customers to receive less than retail for the energy their systems generate.

Feedback may be sent to Load_Analysis_Team@pjm.com.

Molly Mooney, senior analyst – Resource Adequacy Planning, presented the midyear load forecast update, noting that it is for stakeholders’ information only and is not used as an input in any market or planning process.

She also encouraged members to share by mid-September any load research or saturation data, forecast adjustments or loss-of-load to incorporate into the 2019 official forecast.

Andrew Gledhill, senior analyst – Resource Adequacy Planning, reviewed the ongoing work of load forecast model development, with an eye toward improving the base forecast. He also presented proposed changes to the model used to produce weather-normalized peaks.

According to PJM, the current weather normalization procedure accurately portrays the growth pattern of peak load over time, but it does not accurately estimate weather-normalized growth in the first year of the forecast. To address this issue, PJM is considering replacing the current weather normalization procedure with a model-based procedure.