Utilities File Changes To Proposal To Compel Retail Suppliers To Transfer Certain PJM Price Responsive Demand Credits To Utilities, To Address Retail Supplier Concerns
November 4, 2019 Email This Story Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • firstname.lastname@example.org
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Baltimore Gas and Electric, Pepco, and Delmarva have filed revisions to their previously proposed Maryland tariffs to establish a process by which retail electric suppliers must transfer, to the utility, credits, which the suppliers receive from the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), that are associated with each utility's participation in the PJM capacity market as a price responsive demand (PRD) resource
As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, the utilities have said that the current PJM process does not contemplate distribution utilities bidding PRD on behalf of their delivery customers, including competitive supply customers for which the utility is not the LSE, which the EDCs currently do. As such, the EDCs said that, for shopping customers, PRD credits resulting from actions undertaken by customers through utility PRD programs will inappropriately be provided by PJM to the customer's retail supplier (LSE) rather than the EDC
The utilities are seeking to require retail suppliers to execute a Billing Line Item Transfer (BLIT) with PJM that would cause PJM to transfer the financial credits associated with the EDC's PRD resource from the third-party supplier’s PJM bill to the EDC's PJM bill
As previously reported, the Retail Energy Supply Association previously filed opposing the Billing Line Item Transfer (BLIT) mechanism proposed by the utilities (as currently structured), "because it would foreclose suppliers from offering PRD programs to their customers."
The utilities said that, as a result of discussions with RESA and WGL Energy, each EDC is now proposing to include
additional language in the tariff to address the possibility that retail electricity suppliers offer
a PRD program in Pepco's territory. Absent changes by PJM whereby it would credit a PRD
provider for its own PRD customers, retail electricity suppliers will continue to be subject to a
Billing Line Item Transfer, but would submit a bill to the EDC for the financial credits and costs
associated with the retail electricity supplier's PRD customers.
"This would ensure that PRD
credits and costs are correctly allocated between Pepco and the retail electricity supplier," the EDCs said
The revised tariff language would specifically state (BGE used as an example, similar language for other EDCs): "PRD Unforced Capacity Financial Credit Billing Line Item Transfer. Electricity Suppliers governed by the Maryland Public Service Commission under this Tariff shall agree to a PJM billing line item transfer of the financial credits and costs associated with BGE’s participation in the PJM capacity market as a PRD resource from their respective PJM bill to BGE’s PJM bill. Absent changes made by PJM to credit the PRD provider for all of its PRD customers, when an Electricity Supplier participates in PJM’s capacity market as a PRD resource in the BGE service territory, the Electricity Supplier shall bill BGE for the financial credits and costs associated with the Electricity Supplier’s PRD customers to ensure that PRD credits and costs are correctly allocated between BGE and the Electricity Supplier."
The EDCs noted that BGE already indicated at customer enrollment, via an EDI transaction, whether a customer is participating in a BGE demand response program. Pepco and Delmarva do not currently have an EDI
data identifier in place that informs retail suppliers whether a customer is participating in an EDC load management program. Pepco and Delmarva are updating its enrollment
response transaction to include these indicators, and expect to implement this function during
the first quarter of 2020.