Members reacted warily Thursday to PJM’s proposal to develop a generic transition mechanism that would hold capacity providers harmless for future rule changes.

PJM’s Adrien Ford told the Markets and Reliability Committee that the proposal was prompted by the transition mechanism approved by members to protect generators whose installed capacity ratings are reduced by seasonal verification tests. (See Transition Period OKd for Seasonal Verification Rules.)

Bruce Campbell, of demand response provider EnergyConnect, said the proposed solution, based on the Manual 21 fix for generators, may not provide protection for DR.

“This mechanism is really impractical” because it assumes the impact of the changes can be predicted, Campbell said. “We often don’t know what the impact of the changes will be.”

Susan Bruce, of the PJM Industrial Customer Coalition, said she prefers “stability” in capacity market rules. “It might make rule changes too easy to contemplate,” she said.

Exelon’s Jason Barker said his company had “reservations about a `one size fits all’ solution.”

Barker said “it would certainly be helpful to have a default” transition mechanism. But he said it should be spelled out in manuals and not the Tariff or Operating Agreement, where changes would require Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval.

Katie Guerry, of DR provider EnerNOC, agreed, suggesting the mechanism not be a “defined solution but a set of parameters that must be abided by.”

Ford said PJM officials attempted to address DR in drafting the problem statement. “We wanted to make sure it works for all types of capacity resources,” she said.

The MRC will be asked to vote on the proposed problem statement and issue charge at its next meeting.