PJM stakeholders unanimously endorsed deadline changes for adjustments associated with finalizing the zonal network service peak load (NSPL) values in Manual 14D and Manual 27.

Ray Fernandez, PJM manager for market settlements development, reviewed updates to the generator operational requirements in Manual 14D and the Open Access Transmission Tariff Accounting section of Manual 27. The Manual 27 revisions were endorsed at Wednesday’s Market Implementation Committee meeting, while the related Manual 14D revisions were endorsed the following day at the Operating Committee meeting.

The revisions are related to the border yearly charge (BYC) — the charge for long- and short-term point-to-point transmission service for points of delivery at PJM’s border, which goes into effect on Jan. 1 of each year.

Fernandez said deadline dates in both manuals conflicted with the deadline dates of the BYC, including ones for the NSPL verification and zonal adjustments.

In Manual 14D, the behind-the-meter generation business rules had a Dec. 1 deadline for a load-serving entity to request a downward adjustment to its NSPL or obligation peak load. PJM proposed revising the deadline from Dec. 1 to Oct. 31.

Changes in Manual 27 included adding clauses to section 5.2 stipulating adjustments that need to be provided to PJM Market Settlements by Nov. 10. Any adjustments provided after the deadline will not be included in the NSPLs for the next calendar year and won’t be used in the BYC calculation.

The manual changes were originally up for endorsement at the July MIC meeting, but Fernandez said stakeholders raised objections with language contained in Manual 14D relating to BTM generation. Fernandez said PJM met with stakeholders to address the issue and were able to reach an agreement on compromise language.

ARR/FTR Market Task Force Poll

Members voted to put the ARR/FTR Market Task Force on hiatus until an independent consultant completes a review of PJM’s auction revenue rights and financial transmission rights market constructs.

Dave Anders, PJM director of stakeholder affairs, reviewed the results of the task force poll taken in July and discussed its recommendation to go on hiatus.

The nonbinding poll had 140 respondents, with 124 voting (89%) to put the group on hiatus until the consultant completes its work.

Anders said feedback from stakeholders resulted in an increase in the scope of the work to be completed by the consultant. (See PJM Revises Consultant Scope for ARR/FTR Review.) The hiring of a consultant was one of the recommendations in last year’s independent report on the GreenHat Energy default. The review is anticipated to take 12 weeks. (See PJM Revises Consultant Scope for ARR/FTR Review.)

Anders said PJM is “in the final throes” of awarding the contract for the consultant and close to completing the final negotiation for the scope of work. He said stakeholders should expect an announcement “shortly” on the hiring.

Erik Heinle, of the D.C. Office of the People’s Counsel, asked Anders if stakeholders will have an opportunity to meet with the consultant as they’re working on the report or after it’s completed. Anders said plans are being finalized, but he expects there will be some interaction between the consultant and stakeholders.

Market Suspension Settlements

PJM is exploring the development of business rules to address a market suspension from an emergency or some other incident.

Tim Horger of PJM provided a first read of a problem statement and issue charge to develop business rules. The RTO is looking for approval of the issue charge at the September MIC meeting.

Horger said PJM has been contemplating scenarios of a market suspension with no day-ahead or real-time LMP results and realized that it had limited guidance on how to handle settlements during a suspension.

PJM has never experienced a market suspension event and doesn’t anticipate that it would occur, Horger said, but the RTO feels it needs to create business rules to apply to all possible scenarios.

The key work activities and scope for the issue include:

• reviewing instances for which a market suspension may occur;
• reviewing consequences to the market associated with a suspension;
• reviewing PJM’s existing business rules, along with procedures of other RTOs/ISOs in the event of a suspension; and
• reviewing options for how settlements can be determined in the event of a suspension.

Horger said work on the issue is estimated to take about three months and could start as early as October if the issue charge is approved next month.

Sharon Midgley of Exelon asked if the problem statement and issue charge only relate to the energy market or if it could also apply to all of PJM’s markets.

Horger said the “obvious” market seemed to be energy, but it could apply to all markets and would be determined in the key work activities.

Midgley said she thought the duration of the work needs to be considered because of the complexity of the issue. “I don’t think it’s going to get done in three months unless there’s already a solution in mind,” she said.