VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — PJM’s existing Market Efficiency Process Enhancement Task Force will tackle concerns raised by the Independent Market Monitor over its benefit-cost analyses for transmission projects.

PJM Director of Infrastructure Planning Sue Glatz told the Planning Committee on Thursday that staff agreed the issues raised in the Monitor’s problem statement last month would be best addressed in the task force’s third phase. (See “Revisit Benefit-cost Analysis, Monitor Says,” PJM PC/TEAC Briefs: April 11, 2019.) Glatz stood in for PC Chairman Ken Seiler.

The Monitor said last month that PJM’s current benefits calculation ignores increased congestion in all zones resulting from a transmission project. Specifically, the benefit-cost analysis does not account for the fact that transmission project costs are not subject to cost caps and may exceed estimated costs by a wide margin. When actual costs exceed estimated costs, the benefit-cost analysis is effectively meaningless, and low estimated costs may result in inappropriately favoring transmission projects over market generation projects or the option of no project at all, the Monitor said.

Generation Interconnection Requests Update

PJM proposed revisions to its generation interconnection requests process, as detailed in Manual 14G.

Lisa Krizenoskas, PJM senior engineer, said the first proposed change expands rules for demand response found in section 1.7. Staff propose directing on-site generators used to reduce load that participate as DR to Manuals 11 and 18 for further guidelines, while requiring the portion of any such generator that injects power past the point of interconnection to follow the existing interconnection process outlined in Manual 14G.

PJM also proposes a site control term of three years — two years for projects of 20 MW or less — commencing on the first day of the new services queue in which the customer submits its request. Extensions must be exercised by the developer at the time site control evidence is given to PJM.

New Fee Structure for Cost Containment Needed

PJM said its reconfigured cost-containment process will charge developers a lot more money, even for projects valued at less than $20 million.

Mark Sims, PJM’s manager of infrastructure coordination, said the old tiered approach, approved in 2014, doesn’t account for the increased cost of the new comparison framework that involves independent consultant review and legal and financial analyses.

“A lot of work is going to be done in parallel, which is going to increase costs,” Sims said. “A lot of projects up to $100 million will need extensive analysis. That’s just the bottom line. We aren’t sure the existing fee structure is going to work.”

Currently, PJM charges nothing for cost-containment review of projects $20 million or less. Projects up to $100 million cost $5,000 to review and larger projects incur a $30,000 fee.

Sims said the expense of paying independent consultants for each individual project proposal could reach $50,000. He said staff are working to finalize a new fee structure to present to stakeholders in the coming months.

RTEP Language on Track for June MRC Vote

Aaron Berner, PJM’s manager of transmission planning, said proposed revisions to the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan process remain on track for a vote at the June Markets and Reliability Committee meeting.

LS Power proposed an amendment in January to Manual 14B that was slated for stakeholder endorsement at the April 25 MRC meeting. The proposal specifies that a transmission owner’s supplemental project “will generally be removed from the RTEP” following a final order by a state siting agency rejecting the project. Supplemental projects are proposed by TOs and are not required for compliance with PJM’s reliability, operational performance or economic criteria. (See “RTEP Removal Language Vote Deferred Again,” PJM MRC/MC Briefs: April 25, 2019.)

Berner said PJM asked stakeholders to submit feedback by today so staff can present revised manual language at the May 29 meeting.

Geomagnetic Disturbance Data Needed

PJM wants TOs to submit new or updated data on facilities susceptible to geomagnetic disturbance events as part of its ongoing effort to establish procedures in sync with NERC requirements.

Affected facilities are those that include high-power transformers with a high-side, wye-grounded winding with terminal voltage greater than 200 kV.

PJM wants the TO-supplied data by July 18 so that further analysis can be completed in 2020.

Dominion Supplementals

Dominion Energy submitted requests for supplemental projects during Thursday’s Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee meeting.

A Dominion customer wants to add a third 84-MVA distribution transformer at the Enterprise Substation in Loudoun County, Va. The new transformer is being driven by continued data center load growth and alternate feed contract reservations, with a requested in-service date of July 15, 2020.

In the same county, Dominion wants to add a fourth 84-MVA distribution transformer at the Poland Road Substation. The need is driven by continued load growth in the area and contingency loading for the loss of one of the existing transformers, with a requested in-service date of Dec. 31, 2021.

In Prince William County, Dominion requested a new substation to support a data center campus with a total load in excess of 100 MW, with a requested in-service date of Dec. 15, 2021.

Dominion also presented nine proposed solutions for requested supplementals at a total cost of $104.25 million.

American Electric Power Solution

American Electric Power presented a solution to one of its proposed supplemental projects for the Tanners Creek line in Indiana on Thursday.

AEP wants to spend $5.93 million installing two new 345-kV breakers to address faults on the connecting Dearborn line. A crew will move the existing M2 breaker into a new N string, allowing for the termination of the Dearborn line. A new 345-kV breaker will complete the T string.

Alternative solutions include reterminating the 345/138-kV transformer and 345-kV Dearborn line into existing breaker spots. Because of the way the station is laid out, this would require reconfiguring multiple 345-kV lines and would cost more, AEP said.

Protection Standards Revisions Endorsed

Stakeholders unanimously endorsed editorial changes to Manual 7: PJM Protection Standards.

The revisions reflect industry standard updates from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and will apply to all new projects approved after Jan. 1, 2012.

– Christen Smith