Below is a summary of the issues scheduled to be brought to a vote at the PJM Markets and Reliability Committee meeting on 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. (The Members Committee will also be meeting but has no voting items scheduled.)

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

Consent Agenda (9:10-9:15)

B. Manual 14F: Competitive Planning Process: Modification in response to a September FERC order that said transmission projects solely needed to address Form 715 planning criteria violations should not be exempt from competition. (See FERC Opens Local Tx Projects to Competition, Cost Sharing.)

C. Manual 40: Training and Certification Requirements: Revisions resulting from cover-to-cover periodic review; includes updated temporary waiver language to allow more flexibility in addressing compliance with training and certification requirements.

1. Fuel Cost Policy (9:15-9:35)

The MRC will consider two different fuel-cost policy packages endorsed by the Market Implementation Committee in December. (See “Fuel-cost Policies,” PJM MIC Briefs: Dec. 11, 2019.)

The first package, compiled by a group of stakeholders, won 87% support and will be voted on as the main motion. The plan reduces penalties when a market seller self-identifies violations of its FCP and provides a “safe harbor” for force majeure scenarios and other situations of noncompliance that weren’t contemplated by the policy. The plan would also expand the use of temporary FCPs.

The PJM Industrial Customer Coalition and Calpine offered revisions to the first package that they said would address the RTO’s concerns about language applying penalties and duplicating benefits. The revisions clarify that the full penalty would be imposed if a unit is marginal in the day-ahead or real-time markets with a cost-based offer. A unit committed on its price-based schedule that later fails the three-pivotal-supplier test during its minimum run time or hours of its day-ahead commitment would also not incur the full impact factor unless the other conditions for market impact were met. About 81% of the committee endorsed this proposal.

– Christen Smith