PJM presented changes to its submission and review processes for large load adjustments (LLAs) that are intended to provide stakeholders with more transparency before they are included in future load forecasts, as well as a draft proposal to standardize how it determines what share of LLAs will be included in its forecasts.

Under the revised timeline, the Load Analysis Subcommittee (LAS) would review LLA submissions in September, rather than October, to allow more time for stakeholders to discuss the data provided by electric distribution companies and load-serving entities. PJM would open the submission window on July 1, with responses expected by early September.

Under Manual 19 Attachment B, PJM currently sends the request for LLA submissions in mid-July, with a meeting to review the responses at the LAS in September or October.

Presenting to the LAS on June 10, PJM’s Molly Mooney said the changes center around processing LLA submissions earlier in the load forecast schedule to allow more time for RTO staff and stakeholders to see the impact they may have on reliability studies. She said the timeline will provide “a little extra time will give us more wiggle room internally to give an early warning to the impact these large loads will have on that reliability impact study.”

Mooney said adjustments accounting for concentrated data center growth have led to many stakeholders submitting inquiries to PJM, and the proposal is aimed at providing more transparency around how those LLAs are developed and processed by the RTO. (See Panel Discusses Data Center Load Growth at PJM Annual Meeting.)

PJM also is considering revising the language of the request it sends to EDCs and LSEs soliciting LLAs to standardize the process, providing more guidance on the information PJM is looking for and how it would seek to fill in any gaps.

Those making submissions would be asked to identify the amount of load in both demand and capacity terms. If only expected capacity values are provided, PJM would use historic data to determine a demand value. The change also would ask that adjustments include the amount of time it would take for a project to ramp up to its full load, with a default of three years if no estimate is provided.

PJM may derate the amount of load it expects to come online based on the likelihood of the consumer entering service. Projects coming online within three years and that have made electric service obligations or construction commitments to the EDC or LSE may be included in the load forecast. Projects with in-service dates between three and eight years into the future may be derated if the consumer has not made those commitments or provided evidence of “demonstrable project milestones.” Longer-term LLAs may be submitted using expected agreement flows or extrapolations with proper substantiation.

For projects being derated, submissions should include a probability factor detailing how far a project has advanced toward completion, such as site control, state support, transmission upgrades or financial commitments. Without that information, PJM may use a default probability of 50% to derate the project.

The change also would establish a 50-MW floor for LLA submissions, though Mooney noted NERC is considering its own threshold. Smaller adjustments still would be permitted on a case-by-case basis.

Calpine’s David “Scarp” Scarpignato said he worries that derating expected energy by as much as 50% could risk undercounting much of the load that is likely to come online, undermining the accuracy of the forecast.

PJM’s Andrew Gledhill responded that when the RTO implements its long-term, regional planning proposal to comply with FERC’s Order 1920, it could include scenarios looking at both high and low data center penetration. (See FERC Order 1920 Sees Wide-ranging Rehearing Requests.)