November 22, 2024
FERC Rejects Challenge to PJM CP Rules on Coal Plants
FERC rejected the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency (IMEA) challenge to the PJM Capacity Performance rules for coal plants.

By Rich Heidorn Jr.

FERC on Thursday rejected an Illinois Municipal Electric Agency challenge to PJM’s Capacity Performance rules for coal plants, saying it had dealt with IMEA’s concerns in its June 2015 order approving the program (ER15-623-010, et al.).

IMEA asked for rehearing on two aspects of the commission’s May 2016 follow-up CP order on compliance, arguing that the order will “unduly disadvantage coal-fired generation owners like IMEA who separately bid in their minimal level of output and megawatts,” according to FERC’s summary.

PJM Capacity Performance CP IMEA
IMEA owns 12% of LG&E and KU’s Trimble County 1, a 514-MW coal-fired unit between Louisville and Cincinnati. | LG&E-KU

Created in 1984, IMEA comprises 32 municipal electric systems and one cooperative in Illinois. It owns a 15% stake in two 800-MW supercritical units at the Prairie State Generating Co. in Southern Illinois, and 12% of Trimble County 1 (a 514-MW coal-fired unit) and Trimble County 2 (a 750-MW super-critical, pulverized coal-fired unit) located between Louisville and Cincinnati.

Nonperformance Charge Exemption

IMEA said FERC should have approved PJM’s compliance filing — a response to the June 2015 order — proposing to exempt generators from nonperformance charges “if the relevant resource is not scheduled by PJM, or is online but scheduled down, subject to a determination by PJM that such an action is appropriate” under its economic dispatch.

The agency said the May 2016 order was thus inconsistent with commission precedent recognizing the longer ramp-time needs of coal units.

But FERC ruled that “IMEA effectively seeks rehearing of the initial June 2015 order, not the May 2016 order.”

“Having failed to seek rehearing of the June 2015 order on this issue, IMEA may not raise these issues on rehearing of the May 2016 order addressing PJM’s compliance filing,” the commission said.

Operating Parameter Constraints

PJM IMEA Capacity Performance CP
IMEA Members | IMEA

The commission also rejected IMEA’s argument that PJM’s compliance proposal on operating parameter constraints failed to provide sufficient specificity or transparency.

IMEA said “it is critical that PJM be required to explicitly document the specific operating limitations it will impose on a given resource and the reasons justifying those limitations,” FERC explained.

In response, the commission reiterated its May 2016 order, finding that PJM’s provision of timelines and details specifying how the RTO will implement its process for reviewing unit-specific parameter limited schedules is sufficient.

The commission cited “provisions of PJM’s Tariff allowing for an annual review of unit-specific parameter limitations and a case-by-case procedure through which a resource can justify operating outside of its unit-specific parameters for purposes of receiving make-whole payments. The May 2016 order further interpreted PJM’s obligation to notify a seller in writing regarding PJM’s determination as a commitment to provide sufficient detail regarding its determination.”

Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Commissioner Robert Powelson did not participate in the ruling.

Capacity MarketPJM

Leave a Reply

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