VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — The Market Implementation Committee last week unanimously approved a problem statement to consider revisions to the parameter limited schedule (PLS) exemption process.

Bob O’Connell, who presented the issue on behalf of PPGI Fund A/B Development, said Tariff changes made in 2012 have made it more difficult to obtain exceptions to default PLS values, limitations imposed on generators’ minimum run times or other elements of cost-based offers.

O’Connell took issue with the “inflexible deadline” for long-term exceptions, which, he said, “does not recognize various changes that may take place on the market participant’s side that may result in the need to get around the Feb. 28 deadline.”

For example, he said, he has clients currently testing units that might not be ready by Feb. 28. “They don’t know if they should apply for anything,” he said.

There also are challenges with the resolution that has been proposed, he said, which is to seek a waiver from FERC. First, there is no guarantee the commission will rule, he said.

“Second, if a market participant is seeking an exception, right now the market participant works with the Market Monitor and PJM to determine whether, one, the exception is merited and, two, what the numbers should be,” he said. Once FERC is approached, he said, “Everybody can be involved, even if they don’t have the information.”

“What we’re seeking to do is start up the stakeholder process to rethink what’s on the table right now and come up with something that provides an administratively efficient process.”

Debate Continues over Confidentiality of Information

The committee continued to debate allowing PJM to make public certain types of data, such as uplift payments, demand response deployments, generator outages and cleared capacity resources. The changes would modify Manual 33: Administrative Services. (See PJM Stakeholders to Study Relaxing Confidentiality Rules.)

Jim Benchek of FirstEnergy said his company is most concerned with two of the six categories: details about individual generation outages and cleared capacity resources.

Regarding the outages, he said, “As a resource owner, we believe that is our data, and we really don’t want to release it to make it public.”

If PJM, the market seller and the Independent Market Monitor agree the information is not confidential, he said, “then it would be OK to release that data.”

In addition, he said, outages carry a variety of implications, including Capacity Performance penalties, and information about them might lead some to speculate about the health of a company. Likewise, releasing information about cleared capacity resources provides a window into a company’s position in the market, he said.

A number of suppliers echoed his concerns.

Monitor Joe Bowring said he had concerns about proposed changes to the capacity resource section of the manual, which would allow PJM to release the identities of resources that clear the third Incremental Auction.

“We don’t think supply curves in the capacity market should be made public,” Bowring said. “The information is very persistent from year to year. It supports collusion.”

Compromise Offered on Masking FTR Ownership

DC Energy’s Bruce Bleiweis, who has been leading a rocky effort to mask the ownership of financial transmission rights, said he was willing to offer a compromise: that they be kept private for 90 days.

At a September meeting of the MIC, Bleiweis garnered only 61% approval of his problem statement — an indication that he may have trouble winning the two-thirds majority needed for a rule change. (See “PJM to Consider Masking FTR Ownership” in PJM Market Implementation Briefs.)

At that meeting, Bleiweis had asked PJM to look into whether it discloses the ownership of its other market products. PJM’s Tim Horger confirmed last week that the RTO does not.

“In other types of markets, participant info is not posted out there,” Horger said. “PJM can support a change for removing it, but [we] want what the stakeholders want. We don’t have a strong interest one way or the other.”

Bowring reiterated his support for the status quo.

“We think the current release of ownership information makes sense, and we don’t see a reason for your additional compromise proposal,” he said.

Bleiweis said FTR owners should be able to expect the same treatment as other market participants.

“We’re not looking for less transparency; we’re looking for consistency,” he said.

“Our biggest concern is there are instances where you have multi rounds of auctions, and we were hoping that the membership, the Market Monitor and PJM would agree that releasing that information intraround — so that you see the ownership after round one, before round two — that you shouldn’t reveal that kind of confidential information.”

— Suzanne Herel