VALLEY FORGE, Pa. —
PJM stakeholders provided feedback to the Board of Managers on a potential review of the Independent Market Monitor contract during the Markets and Reliability Committee meeting Wednesday.
Manager David Mills said the current deliberations are focused on the structure of the contract, not the performance of the current contract holder, Monitoring Analytics, nor whether the company will continue to hold the contract.
“It’s been quite some time since these documents were reviewed, and in that time, PJM has had a significant amount of turnover on the board,” Mills said. “This is not a performance review or referendum on Monitoring Analytics.”
Paul Sotkiewicz, president of E-Cubed Policy Associates, pushed for the board to consider issuing a request for proposals.
“If it turns out Monitoring Analytics is the best outfit to do this, that’s great … but I do think this should be open to a competitive process,” he said.
Vitol’s Jason Barker said the contract states that the PJM board has the responsibility to evaluate the Monitor’s performance, but it doesn’t provide any measure to benchmark against. He advocated for a third party to be retained to look at topics such as whether Monitor comments are pertinent and influence the outcome of FERC orders, and the impact of Monitor participation in the stakeholder process.
“We encourage the board not only to retain this provision … but also to use it,” he said.
Susan Bruce, of the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition (ICC), said the cost of market manipulation in PJM’s market is high and customers are willing to pay for a monitor who can push for stronger competition. While she said discussion of the Monitor’s role is appreciated, she cautioned against holding an RFP, saying that continuity is critical to the IMM’s work.
“There’s a place here for history and understanding how the markets work,” she said.
The topic of reviewing the contract was first raised in the board’s Competitive Market Committee. Mills, the committee’s chair, reiterated the board’s commitment to a monitor empowered to curtail market manipulation.
“None of this is intended to tear apart or destroy the foundation of a strong market monitor,” he said.
The board had previously solicited stakeholder input through the Liaison Committee and last month at the Organization of PJM States Inc.’s meeting, where Mills said comments addressed data access, intellectual property rights for proprietary software and calculations used by the Monitor, and how the contract handles succession.
Mills said the board plans to provide a public written summary of the comments it has received this month.
