December 23, 2024
PJM Operating Committee Briefs
PJM Plans to End Compensation for CP Units Participating in Winter Testing
Capacity Performance units no longer would be compensated for participating in cold weather testing under a plan by the PJM Operating Committee.

Beginning this year, Capacity Performance units no longer would be compensated for participating in cold weather testing, which is set to be continued under a plan that the PJM Operating Committee will be asked to endorse in August.

The program is voluntary, noted PJM’s David Schweizer, and generators may self-schedule their own testing.

PJM Operating Committee Briefs
As PJM moves to a Capacity Performance model, designed to avoid the outages experienced during the Polar Vortex, the RTO wants to continue winter testing but end generator compensation.

The rationale behind the change, which was first mentioned in April, is that PJM expects generators to factor the cost of testing into their offers. (See “Plan: Continue Cold Weather Testing, End Compensation for CP Participants,” PJM Operating Committee Briefs.)

All units will be required to be Capacity Performance beginning in the 2020/21 delivery year.

There were no other changes recommended for the program, which Schweizer said was valuable even though it didn’t yield much useful data last winter because of warmer temperatures.

Several members representing generation said the testing program will be a tough sell absent compensation.

“Without compensation, the program will dry up,” said one stakeholder who asked not to be identified.

John Farber of the Delaware Public Service Commission supported the plan.

“Customers are paying for premium capacity. The question is if they’re getting it,” he said. “We support where PJM is going with this. We really think compensation should be covered through the CP offer.”

Committee Chair Mike Bryson said staff would incorporate members’ comments into revised manual language that will be brought to a first read in July.

PJM Won’t Ask FERC to Rehear Ramp Rate Proposal, Plans to Collect Data

PJM will not ask FERC for a rehearing of its performance assessment hour (PAH) ramp rate proposal, which the commission rejected on May 31. (See FERC Rejects Ramp Rate Exception in PJM Capacity Rules.)

The Tariff changes would have exempted a capacity resource from nonperformance charges if it was following PJM’s dispatch instructions and operating at an acceptable ramp rate during periods of high load. They were drafted as a temporary measure to guard against generators self-scheduling prior to a PAH.

“As of right now, it’s status quo,” said PJM’s Rebecca Stadelmeyer, who convened a number of lengthy discussions over the past few months to win stakeholder consensus. “You need to be at expected Capacity Performance immediately.”

“We have decided internally that we’re not going to request a rehearing, largely because we took a good look at the arguments using examples we had from stakeholder endorsement,” Bryson said. “I think data is the next cog in getting this done. We’ll continue to collect that. I don’t know if we necessarily need an emergency situation to get all the data, though a performance assessment hour would help.”

Stu Bresler, senior vice president for operation and markets, agreed.

“We were disappointed that FERC didn’t take our word for it, but it seems the only thing that will change their minds at this point is data,” he said.

GOs to be Questioned on Governor Response Survey Results

PJM is concerned that most units participating in PJM’s Governor Response Survey did not provide reasons for deviating from NERC settings.

Schweizer said staff would be reaching out to generation operators to better understand the survey results, including why 5% of units didn’t participate.

Of those responding, 76% reported they had a governor capable of changing output in response to changes in interconnection frequency; 69% said their governor was operational; and 53% responded that their governor was capable of operating with the settings recommended by NERC.

About 43% of combustion turbines, 29% of combined cycle units and 24% of steam/fossil units reported they were capable of providing frequency response in accordance with NERC guidelines. Only 8% of hydro units and 1% of nuclear units reported such capability.

Two-thirds of the units did not provide a reason for deviation from NERC settings.

Among the reasons reported: control mode does not allow (10%); did not align with NERC-recommended dead-band (9%); and set with a slightly less droop setting of 4% (5%).

Suzanne Herel

PJM Operating Committee (OC)Reliability

Leave a Reply

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