Markets and Reliability Committee
Definition of Offline Secondary Reserves
PJM’s Suzanne Coyne presented the RTO’s Markets and Reliability Committee with revisions to Manual 28: Operating Agreement Accounting to clarify how resources are defined as offline for the purpose of determining whether they are eligible for lost opportunity cost (LOC) credits. (See “Stakeholders Endorse Quick Fix on Offline Resource LOC Eligibility,” PJM MIC Briefs: Jan. 7, 2026.)
Coyne said that while the governing documents state that resources that are offline when committed for secondary reserves are not eligible for LOC credits, the manual language can result in resources improperly being considered online if they begin operations between when they are dispatched and when the commitment begins.
The market clearing software has visibility into whether a resource is offline when it assigns a commitment; however, the settlement calculations consider only whether a unit is online when the commitment interval begins 10 minutes later.
The proposal would use real-time security-constrained economic dispatch data to determine whether a resource is online, unifying the discrepancy between dispatch and settlement, she said. If endorsed by the MRC in February, the language would be implemented March 1.
Must-offer Requirement for Self-Scheduling Resources
Mike Cocco, of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC), presented a quick-fix proposal to define a capacity resource as having met its obligation to offer into the energy market if it self-schedules and provides its full output.
The quick-fix process allows a problem statement and issue charge to be brought concurrently with a proposed solution.
Cocco said the proposal would ensure that gas generation resources that self-schedule to ensure they are able to operate and consume fuel procured on ratable take contracts are not at risk of non-performance penalties if there is a performance assessment interval (PAI). Cocco said that all the parties he has reached out to, including PJM and the Independent Market Monitor, have said they interpret Manual 11: Energy & Ancillary Services Market Operations as already providing that protection, but he said ODEC believes that should be codified in the language.
PJM Senior Vice President of Market Services Adam Keech said the parameter-limited schedule (PLS) process is intended to cover these circumstances and questioned whether the proposal is meant to complement or replace that. When a resource owner seeks a PLS exception, it must meet a higher burden of proof that it has diminished flexibility because of the ratable take.
Cocco responded that the proposal as envisioned would not require generation owners to obtain PLS exceptions, but he wanted to consider the comment further and would reach out to PJM staff to discuss.
Members Committee
Stakeholders Endorse Minimum Capitalization Changes
PJM’s Members Committee endorsed by acclamation a proposal to increase the minimum capitalization requirements for participating in the RTO’s markets. (See PJM Presents 1st Read on Minimum Capitalization Requirement Proposal.)
The proposal would revise the tariff to double the tangible net worth requirement to $2 million for those participating in financial transmission rights markets. For entities not participating in FTR markets, there would be a transition period in which the requirement would first increase from the current $500,000 to $1 million and then increase by $200,000 annually over five years. The proposal also adds a 3% fixed annual escalator.
The proposal would not change the alternative tangible asset threshold of $10 million for FTR participants and $5 million for non-FTR participants.
Consumer Advocates Form Residential Affordability User Group
New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel Director Brian Lipman announced the creation of an Affordability and Reliability for Residential Consumers User Group intended to reduce the impact on ratepayers of accelerating load growth from data centers.
Along with his agency, Lipman said the user group includes the Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, D.C. Office of the People’s Counsel, Illinois Citizens Utility Board, Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate.
Lipman said the group’s first meeting on Jan. 27 will include voting on the draft charter and the concept of revising governing documents to include affordability in PJM’s mission statement and Operating Agreement.
Vitol’s Jason Barker said he appreciated the goal of the user group, and while his company has no position on whether it should be formed, he objected to the announcement stating that consumer advocates only have 1% of the voting power in lower standing committees.
Barker said that when sector-weighted voting is accounted for in the MRC and MC, consumer advocates can have the power to sway votes. He pointed to the Critical Issue Fast Path process conducted in 2025 on large load growth, in which 10 consumer advocates cast votes that accounted for half the end-use customer sector, meaning those offices held 10% of the sector-weighted vote.
The 1% figure references the diluted voting power consumer advocates hold outside the MRC and MC, where each of PJM’s 1,111 members can cast votes.
Barker said it is typical for only about 10% of those members to vote in the lower committees.
