Energy Choice
                            

Matters

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

FERC Sets Date, Issues Questions For Technical Conference On Seasonal Resource Participation Under PJM Capacity Performance, Prompted By Complaint Filed By Retail Supplier

March 19, 2018

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-17 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

FERC has set a date (April 24) and has issued questions for stakeholder comment in advance of a previously announced technical conference to explore issues raised in two complaints against PJM's transition to a 100% "capacity performance" product in its capacity market, and the methodology by which load-serving entities’ peak-shaving actions are reflected in capacity procurement targets, as well as two related components of PJM’s resource aggregation rules.

One of the complaints had been filed by Direct Energy, Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, and American Municipal Power, and had generally sought to establish a proceeding to allow seasonal resources to participate in the Reliability Pricing Model auctions and to extend the allowance for "base" capacity resources for an additional year to allow for such introduction of seasonal resources (note, during the pendency of the complaint, the first auction for 100% capacity performance was in fact held)

See more details on the complaint here, and FERC's refusal to dismiss the complaint

As part of denying motions to dismiss the complaint, FERC had ordered a technical conference, scheduled for April 24, 2018, to discuss issues raised in the complaint

In advance of the conference, FERC issued for comment the following questions:

1. According to complainants, PJM indicated in the stakeholder process that a procurement of 80 percent Capacity Performance and 20 percent Base Capacity yields a near-zero loss of load expectation (LOLE) over 42 (non-summer peak) weeks of the year. Do these results provide information about the value of lost load in 10 peak-summer weeks versus the rest of the year? Is placing the majority of loss-of-load risk in 10 peak-summer weeks an appropriate allocation of risk for purposes of meeting the 1-in-10 LOLE target in a cost-effective manner? If yes, please explain why. If not, what would be a better distribution of risk that can still satisfy the 1-in-10 LOLE target?

2. How is the conclusion that PJM’s current capacity procurement yields a near-zero LOLE in the winter consistent with PJM’s experience in the Polar Vortex? How does the LOLE calculation take into account outage-related factors, for instance, planned maintenance outages are typically scheduled only during non-summer months?

3. Complainants argue that it is appropriate to procure more capacity for the summer months than for the non-summer months. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of (a) procuring this capacity by using annual and summer-only capacity products in a single auction, as PJM did in the past, versus (b) creating two distinct auctions, and procuring summer capacity in one auction and non-summer capacity in the other? Are there other viable methods to meet this objective? If so, please describe them.

4. Does PJM’s load forecasting methodology reasonably reflect peak shaving efforts by end users?

   a. What is the basis for the current load forecasting methodology and what are its advantages within the context of peak shaving practices?

   b. Are there aspects of the current load forecasting methodology that can be improved and may be incorrect or resulting in unreasonable outcomes within the context of peak shaving practices?

   c. Are there alternative methodologies to reflect peak shaving efforts? If so, what are they and are there obstacles to implementing them?

Docket EL17-32 et. al.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Director, Retail Energy Supply & Pricing -- Retail Supplier -- Houston
NEW! -- Sales and Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- Broker -- DFW
NEW! -- Commercial Energy Advisor
NEW! -- Energy Broker
NEW! -- Business Development Manager - Texas, Retail Provider
NEW! -- Account Manager, Retail Energy -- DFW
NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Business Development Manager - Northeastern US, Retail Supplier
NEW! -- Senior or Principal Quantitative Research Analyst, Energy Commodity/Risk

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-16 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search