Stakeholders wrap up busy week with busy PC

1268

At the May 3 meeting of the PJM Planning Committee, PJM presented revisions to the enhanced project proposal template for its cost containment proposal for Order 1000 projects.

The revisions were in response to stakeholder feedback and built on ideas PJM presented at the April 27 special session of the PC.

The revised proposal submittal template is designed to communicate project specifics clearly and transparently and provide a uniform, fill-in format for project information. The templates are organized to facilitate easy preparation and review and to improve adaptability for future conversion to an electronic (potentially web-based) submission format.

The submittal requirements include general project and financial information as well as project details for transmission line reconductor/rebuild, substation upgrades, greenfield transmission lines and greenfield substations.

After the presentation by Sue Glatz, director – Infrastructure Planning, several members moved that stakeholders vote on the PJM proposal. What followed was spirited discussion of the templates and the Order 1000 process.

Stakeholders voted on three motions:

  • Stakeholder motion one: The new alternative PJM proposal with construction caps passed with close to 64 percent of the vote.
  • Stakeholder motion two: The new alternative PJM proposal including a revenue requirement did not pass (47 percent for, 53 percent against).
  • A “sense of the committee” stakeholder motion to request that the Markets and Reliability Committee (MRC) defer the vote on the LS Power proposal (see separate box on Background below) at its May meeting and remand back to the Planning Committee for further discussion, providing that the Planning Committee’s special meeting on Order 1000 would bring the results of any further deliberation back to the full Planning Committee in July for a vote in order to send any recommendation to the MRC. This passed with 78 percent of the vote.

Background

 

In 2017, the Planning Committee held a series of special meetings coming out of the Order 1000 lessons-learned assessment on future evaluation of proposals that contain proposed cost caps.

 

At the December 2017 Planning Committee meeting, stakeholders endorsed the PJM proposal that came out of those meetings. A first reading of the proposal took place at the December Markets & Reliability meeting.

 

In January 2018, the MRC voted on the main motion (the PJM proposal endorsed by the PC), which failed in a sector-weighted vote (1.71 in favor – as a rule, 3.335 is passing in sector-weighted voting). LS Power then proposed an alternate motion that had not been discussed at the Planning Committee. A motion passed to defer voting on that alternative to no later than the May 2018 MRC meeting. The motion also referred issues surrounding cost containment to the Planning Committee (deficiencies identified in the presentation on the alternate motion, discussion of components of the PJM proposal, and other outstanding issues raised by stakeholders).

 

If the LS Power proposal passes at the MRC meeting, that is the end of the process. If it fails, stakeholders could vote on any other alternate motions that get moved, including that which passed on May 3. Additionally, there may be a motion to further defer voting – in accordance with the May 3 “sense of the committee” motion.

Highlights of the PJM proposal include:

  • A single proposal submittal template for all competitive project proposals
  • All proposal templates to be made public
  • Templates to clearly indicate where information has been redacted
  • Cost containment details to appear in a separate section
  • Clear statement if cost commitment is offered and what is included/excluded
  • Cost containment legal language to be incorporated into the Designated Entity Agreement
  • Problem Statement and Requirements Document that details the proposal package requirements:
    • Technical analysis files and documentation (no change)
    • Completion of the PJM Proposal Submittal Template (revised)
    • Company evaluation and operations and maintenance information to be provided in a separate document (revised)
    • Project route/location, single line and station layout diagrams and files to be provided separately (no change)
  • Redacted information tab for questions that contain proprietary information

Prior to the template presentation, Janell Fabiano, senior stakeholder process specialist, who is facilitating the special Planning Committee sessions, updated stakeholders on the timetable and progress for the sessions.

Other Planning Committee Business

As introduced at the April Planning Committee meeting, in an effort to streamline the meeting process, PJM included on the agenda several video updates, on reliability compliance and North America Electric Reliability Corporation standard processes.

Endorsements

  • Manual 14A: New Services Request Process (Attachment F and G) to align with the current data submission process in Queue Point
  • Manual 07: Protection Standards (Relay Subcommittee’s periodic cover-to-cover review)
  • Relay Testing Subcommittee documents review
  • Proposed changes to the TO/TOP matrix

First Reads  

Informational Updates