By Rory D. Sweeney

FERC ruled Monday that PJM’s Independent Market Monitor can take part in negotiations over individual generators and doesn’t have to stick only to RTO-wide market issues, parting from a federal appeals court ruling on the Monitor’s role (ER18-1226).

The commission’s order came in response to an administrative law judge denying the Monitor’s request to participate in settlement discussions regarding PA Solar Park’s reactive service rate schedule.

The judge denied the IMM’s motion to intervene, citing a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in June blocking the Monitor from participating in an unsuccessful attempt by Duke Energy and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative to recoup millions of dollars in “stranded” gas costs incurred during the 2014 polar vortex. (See Duke, ODEC Rebuffed on Polar Vortex Gas Refunds.)

In denying the motion and a subsequent appeal, the ALJ cited the D.C. Circuit’s characterization of the Monitor’s role as an “auditor” and said PJM’s Tariff provisions “support the notion that the [Monitor] should be limited to commission proceedings and technical conferences that address PJM and its markets at a macro level, but not discrete and individualized proceedings that are limited to specific parties and singular rate filings.”

The commission disagreed, remanding denial of the Monitor’s appeal back to the judge. FERC pointed out it initiated a process in 2014 to ensure resources in PJM’s footprint don’t receive payments for reactive power capability after the units have been deactivated. (See Impatient FERC Orders Immediate PJM Action on Reactive Power Payments to Retired Plants.)

Individual rate proceedings “are part of a broader, continuing effort by the commission to ensure that the rates for reactive power service within the PJM footprint are just and reasonable,” FERC said, adding the Monitor’s involvement would contribute to the “public interest.”

The ruling does not automatically admit the Monitor into the PA Solar Park case, however. Because the Monitor’s June 19 request to intervene was made after the filing deadline, FERC said the judge must rule on whether to admit the IMM anyway.

The Monitor said its filing was late because “no individual notice” of the matter was provided. It agreed to accept the record as it has developed to date and said its involvement would not prejudice existing parties in the proceeding.