Below is a summary of the issues scheduled to be brought to a vote at the PJM Markets and Reliability and Members committee meetings Thursday. Each item is listed by agenda number, description and projected time of discussion, followed by a summary of the issue and links to prior coverage in RTO Insider.

RTO Insider will be in Valley Forge, Pa., covering the discussions and votes. See next Tuesday’s newsletter for a full report.

Markets and Reliability Committee

Consent Agenda (9:10-9:15)

B. Manual 38: Operations Planning — updates from the periodic cover-to-cover review and updated procedures.

1. Modeling Generation Senior Task Force (9:15-9:30)

After deferring on the issue in December, the MRC will consider a rule change that would implement “soak time” modeling of resources. (See “Modeling Generation Senior Task Force Recommendations,” PJM MRC Briefs: Dec. 19, 2019.)

The MRC endorsed recommendations from the task force last month that can be implemented in the near term while PJM focuses on completion of its next generation energy market (nGEM). But stakeholders requested more time to investigate the soak time recommendation after expressing concerns about the time and energy it would require.

Soak time refers to the minimum period a unit must run from the generator breaker closure until it is dispatchable.

The Modeling Generation Senior Task Force (MGSTF), assembled in 2017, developed the solutions to improve resource modeling for “complex resources” in PJM’s market clearing engines, including combined cycle units, coal units with multiple mills and pumped hydro.

2. Primary Frequency Response Task Force Update (9:30-9:40)

The committee will decide whether to keep the Primary Frequency Response Task Force on hiatus through the first half of 2020.

Primary frequency response (PFR) is the ability of generators to automatically change their output in five to 15 seconds when the grid’s frequency strays above or below 60 Hz. As more renewables enter the resource mix and coal plants retire, the grid can become more susceptible to these frequency swings, threatening system reliability.

In October, PJM said 583 units with capacities of 50 MW or greater were evaluated for PFR across 10 events between March and September. The selected events for analysis met one of three qualifications: frequency goes outside the +/- 40-MHz deadband, frequency stays outside the +/- 40-MHz deadband for 60 continuous seconds or minimum/maximum frequency reaches +/- 53 MHz.

No more than 28 units provided PFR during any of the selected events. In some cases, no units responded. PJM said most critical load and black start units evaluated did not provide PFR because many were offline, operating at maximum capacity or had inconclusive results.

The task force would continue to update the Operating Committee on a quarterly basis of PFR results across the RTO.

Members Committee

Consent Agenda (11:05-11:10)

The MC will be asked to endorse:

B. revisions to the Operating Agreement endorsed by the Financial Risk Mitigation Senior Task Force and MRC to hold five long-term financial transmission rights auctions a year, instead of three, to increase oversight and visibility into portfolio conditions so that more collateral can be collected if necessary. The revisions also would alter the structure of Balancing of Planning Period auctions so that participants can buy and sell in any month of the year, rather than being limited to a specific quarter. (See “FTR Credit Rules Endorsed,” PJM MRC Briefs: Dec. 19, 2019.)

C. revisions to the OA to implement changes to the competitive transmission proposal fee structure. PJM will charge a $5,000 nonrefundable flat fee to all developers who submit competitive proposals. Itemized study costs will be added as necessary. RTO officials said the current tiered approach doesn’t account for the increased cost of the new comparison framework that involves an independent consultant’s review and legal and financial analyses. (See “Competitive Transmission Proposal Fee,” PJM MRC Briefs: Dec. 19, 2019.)

D. revisions to the Tariff and OA related to the hourly differentiated ramp rate changes originating from the MGSTF. The changes will increase the number of segments on the energy offer curve (2020); introduce hourly differentiated segmented ramp rates (late 2020) and implement the soak time parameter referenced in MRC item 1 above (2022).

E. revisions to the Tariff and OA to align them with PJM’s actual implementation of market-based parameter-limited schedules. (See “Parameter-limited Scheduling Fix,” PJM MRC Briefs: Dec. 19, 2019.)

F. revisions to the OA clarifying the requirements for sharing forecasted unit commitment data to transmission owners for reliability studies, to ensure consistency with NERC standards and PJM manuals.

1. Members Committee Resolution (11:10-11:35)

The MC could approve an advisory against TOs’ proposal for a new Tariff Attachment M creating a new, confidential process for projects to address NERC critical infrastructure protection standard CIP-014.

LS Power drafted the document and presented it at the Dec. 5 MC meeting as tensions over the TO proposal grow increasingly fraught. (See “Critical Infrastructure Resolution,” PJM MRC/MC Briefs: Dec. 5, 2019.)

The company said the attachment conflicts with the OA because it will move forward without any vetting from the MC. At the heart of company’s argument is a belief that incumbent TOs don’t get exclusive rights to handling critical infrastructure on NERC’s CIP-014 list. Because the projects could carry significant regional implications, LS Power believes PJM should plan their mitigation. (See PJM TO Filing Stirs Up Transparency Concerns.)

Incumbent TOs argue that NERC’s confidentiality standards — and their rights under PJM’s Attachment M-4 process — support their intention to file the mitigation plan at FERC without input from other sectors.

PJM maintained its neutrality in the debate and urged all stakeholders agree about mitigating critical assets so they are no longer vulnerable to attack. (See PJM Remains Neutral in CIP-014 Debate.)