November 22, 2024
PJM PC/TEAC Briefs: Feb. 4, 2020
PJM Will Share Unredacted Project Proposals with Monitor
PJM told the Planning Committee it will share unredacted project proposals with the Monitor, despite confidentiality concerns raised by transmission owners.

VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — PJM told the Planning Committee last week that it will share unredacted project proposals with its Independent Market Monitor, despite confidentiality concerns raised by incumbent transmission owners late last year.

“The confidentiality agreements were done pursuant to our guidelines and rules, which made it very clear that the information is not confidential between PJM and its contractors,” said Chris O’Hara, PJM’s general counsel. “The IMM is one of our contractors. We are not deviating from those agreements.”

The issue came to a head at the Markets and Reliability Committee meeting on Dec. 19 when a majority of stakeholders endorsed Manual 14F language that memorializes the Monitor’s role in analyzing competitive transmission proposals. (See PJM TOs Challenge Monitor’s Competitive Tx Role.)

PJM
PJM’s Planning Committee meets Feb. 4 at the the Conference and Training Center in Valley Forge, Pa. | © RTO Insider

Incumbent TOs contended the revisions had no basis in Attachment M of PJM’s Tariff and undermined the yearslong vetting process stakeholders undertook to fine-tune cost-containment language for Manual 14F. (See PJM TOs Wary of Cost Containment Rules.)

PJM’s explanation on Feb. 4, however, left some in the sector, including PPL and Public Service Electric and Gas, questioning its logic and expressing confusion that the RTO expected TOs to know that the Monitor is a PJM contractor.

O’Hara reiterated PJM’s position that “there is no basis to withhold data submitted from market participants in competitive windows from the IMM, and the IMM will observe the confidentiality requirements associated with that data.”

Market Efficiency Process Enhancement Packages

The Market Efficiency Process Enhancement Task Force brought three sets of packages to the PC for first read as part of the group’s phase three recommendations.

The packages address changes to the benefit calculation, the window for capacity drivers and the regional transmission market efficiency project (RTMEP) process, and included proposals from PJM, the Monitor, American Electric Power and FirstEnergy.

AEP’s package for updating the RTMEP process won 67% support in a nonbinding poll of 13 respondents representing 110 companies. The company proposed a process that would fill the gap that exists when historical congestion “is persistent and not captured in planning models.” Among its suggested changes, AEP said benefits should be based on two years of historical congestion. The approval process should consider capital costs with no discounts and whether or not those costs will be recovered within the first four years of service via benefits provided. The projects also would be designated to the incumbent TOs.

Some 55% of poll respondents preferred PJM’s package for updating the benefit ratio calculation to modify inputs to consider capacity benefits. The current capacity benefit calculation uses the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan for simulation, including versions that look three years and six years ahead. Changing this calculation to use simulations for the delivery and planning years will better address topology and capacity energy transfer limit uncertainties, PJM said.

PJM also suggests placing restrictions on the in-service date for the capacity market so that project analysis ensures projects address a capacity driver by the applicable auction year. PJM proposes projects must be in service prior to June 1 of the delivery year for which the Base Residual Auction is being conducted.

The Monitor argued that PJM’s cost-benefit analysis is flawed because it doesn’t consider a proposal’s positive and negative impacts. The IMM’s two proposals to base calculations on systemwide load or production costs received just 18% and 11%, respectively.

Finally, 100% of poll respondents supported PJM’s proposal to create a standalone process to address capacity drivers independent of energy driver analysis. The RTO suggested opening separate windows for energy and capacity drivers used for market efficiency projects. The Monitor’s proposal to consolidate the windows received 31%.

The PC will vote on the packages at its next meeting March 10.

Dominion, BGE Supplementals

Dominion Energy wants to add a third, 84-MVA distribution transformer at Cloverhill substation in Prince William County, Va. The new transformer would support continued load growth in the area and contingency loading for the loss of one existing transformer, Dominion said. The projected in-service date is June 1, 2022.

The company also proposed a $14.1 million plan to replace the obsolete Chickahominy 500/230-kV transformer with three single-phase banks and one spare bank with new units. Dominion identified the transformer for replacement during its ongoing transformer health assessment process, noting that the existing unit was installed in 1987 and has known issues.

Baltimore Gas and Electric, an Exelon subsidiary, said it wants to replace four 230-kV oil-filled circuit breakers at its Raphael Road and Waugh Chapel substations. The units are at risk for poor performance and carry environmental risks, the company said.

– Christen Smith

PJM Planning Committee (PC)PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC)Transmission Planning

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *