DOCSLIB.ORG

United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ) Docket Nos. ER21-460-000 ) EL20-56-000 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER OF PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”), pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“Commission”) procedural rules,1 submits this Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer to the December 14, 2020 Joint Protest and Motion to Reject of Indiana Municipal Power Agency (“IMPA”) and Buckeye Power, Inc. (“Buckeye”),2 and the December 14, 2020 Comments of American Electric Power Service Corporation (“AEP”).3 The Commission should deny IMPA’s and Buckeye’s motion to reject PJM’s November 23, 2020 filing4 to comply with the Commission’s September 17, 2020 order5 in this proceeding. Contrary to their arguments, the Compliance Filing’s revisions6 1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212, 385.213. 2 Indiana Municipal Power Agency’s and Buckeye Power, Inc.’s Joint Protest of and Motion to Reject PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.’s Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER21-460-000 (Dec. 14, 2020) (“IMPA/Buckeye Motion/Protest”). 3 Comments of American Electric Power Service Corporation, Docket No. ER21-460-000 (Dec. 14, 2020) (“AEP Comments”). 4 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Compliance Filing, Docket No. ER21-460-000 (Nov. 23, 2020) (“Compliance Filing”). 5 Ind. Mun. Power Agency v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 172 FERC ¶ 61,243 (2020) (“September 17 Order”). 6 The Compliance Filing submitted proposed revisions (“Compliance Revisions”) to the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“Operating Agreement”) and the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (“Tariff”)6 to comply with the directives in the September 17 Order. For ease of reference, this Answer refers to the Operating Agreement when describing revisions that are incorporated into both the Tariff, Attachment K-Appendix and the parallel provisions of the Operating Agreement, Schedule 1. 1 explicitly disavow any interpretation that PJM’s station power provisions determine whether a retail sale of station power has occurred, and add provisions for PJM’s receipt of meter data for the express purpose of reflecting Market Seller’s purchases of energy at retail to meet their station power needs. While further details may be warranted to implement the proposed Compliance Revisions’ overarching directives (including any necessary changes to Market Participants’7 current practices and arrangements), such practical implementing details are best developed through the PJM stakeholder process, and provide no basis for rejecting the Compliance Filing. Such implementing details could appropriately consider AEP’s suggestions (in its Comments) regarding accounting for energy sales and provision of telemetered data to Load Serving Entities (“LSEs”). I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER IMPA and Buckeye’s pleading includes a motion under Commission Rule 212, which PJM is permitted to answer under Commission Rule 213. Although Commission Rule 213(a)(2) does not generally permit answers to protests,8 the Commission permits answers for good cause shown, such as when an answer contributes to a more accurate and complete record or provides useful information that assists the Commission’s deliberative process.9 This Answer will aid the Commission’s decision-making process by showing that the Compliance Filing satisfies the directives of the September 17 Order, and that there 7 Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Answer have the meanings provided for such terms in, as applicable, the Tariff or Operating Agreement. 8 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2). 9 See, e.g., N.Y. State Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 158 FERC ¶ 61,137, at P 29 (2017) (accepting answers because they provided information that assisted in the Commission’s decision- making process); Colonial Pipeline Co., 157 FERC ¶ 61,173, at P 23 (2016) (same). 2 is no basis for rejecting the filing. PJM therefore, to the extent necessary, asks that the Commission accept this Answer. II. ANSWER A. Background. The September 17 Order addressed a petition for declaratory order and complaint filed by IMPA and the City of Lawrenceburg, Indiana (“the City”) against PJM, AEP, and Lawrenceburg Power, LLC (“the Plant”) concerning a dispute between the City and the Plant over the extent to which the City was providing retail electric service to the Plant.10 The September 17 Order granted the Petition only to the extent of “clarify[ing] that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the supply of station power,” and “den[ied] all other related relief requested by Petitioners.”11 The Commission nonetheless found that the station power provisions of the Operating Agreement and the Tariff “may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential” because those provisions “can be read to, and indeed [have] been relied on by certain PJM generators to assert the right to, determine whether a retail sale of station power has occurred and avoid the retail purchase of station power.”12 The September 17 Order directed PJM to eliminate this ambiguity, and suggested specific language changes to that effect.13 The September 17 Order also directed that “PJM should consider whether it has sufficient information to implement 10 Complaint and Petition for Declaratory Relief of the Indiana Municipal Power Agency and the City of Lawrenceburg, Indiana, Docket No. EL20-30-000 (Mar. 6, 2020) (“Petition”). 11 September 17 Order at P 88. 12 Id. at P 107. 13 Id. at PP 107, 108. 3 [Operating Agreement, Schedule 1,] section 1.7.10(d), and if not, propose revisions to its Tariff to require generation and transmission owners to provide sufficient information.”14 On November 23, 2020, PJM submitted the Compliance Filing, proposing the Compliance Revisions to satisfy the September 17 Order’s directives. In response to the Commission’s notice of the Compliance Filing, the IMPA/Buckeye Motion/Protest asked the Commission to reject the Compliance Filing, and the AEP Comments suggested two areas for further Operating Agreement or Tariff revisions. B. The Commission Should Deny the Motion to Reject. Rejection of the Compliance Filing would be warranted only in the atypical case where such filing is “a patent nullity”15 or where deficiencies in the filing are so significant as to warrant immediate rejection.16 More narrowly, the Commission will reject proposed changes in a compliance filing that go beyond the compliance directives of the relevant order.17 Neither consideration warrants rejection of the Compliance Filing. Far from alleging the Compliance Filing is a nullity, IMPA/Buckeye concede the Compliance Revisions include the two specific language changes proposed by the September 17 Order.18 In practical effect, the IMPA/Buckeye Motion/Protest seeks not rejection of those 14 Id. at P 108. 15 Mun. Light Boards v. FPC, 450 F.2d 1341, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (addressing Federal Power Act (“FPA”) section 205, 16 U.S.C. § 824d, filing). 16 Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 86 FERC ¶ 61,130, at 61,450 (1999). NRG v. FERC, 862 F.3d 108 (D.C. Cir. 2017) has arguably expanded the grounds for denial or rejection of an entire filing under FPA section 205, but that precedent is not applicable to the FPA section 206 compliance filing at issue here. See 16 U.S.C. § 824e. 17 See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 155 FERC ¶ 61,157, at PP 303-304 (2016). 18 IMPA/Buckeye Motion/Protest at 17 (Compliance Revisions “largely track[] the September 17 Order’s directive in paragraph 108”). 4 changes, but far more extensive revisions, not specifically identified in the September 17 Order, to the station power provisions in Operating Agreement, Schedule 1, section 1.7.10(d). As shown below, their added changes are not required, and should not be directed. Moreover, as also shown below, none of PJM’s proposed Compliance Revisions go beyond the September 17 Order’s directives. 1. The Compliance Filing complies with the September 17 Order. a. The Compliance Revisions leave no doubt that the station power provisions do not govern or determine retail service. As directed by the September 17 Order, PJM revised Operating Agreement, Schedule 1, section 1.7.10(d) to clearly state that PJM “is not responsible for determining Relevant Electric Retail Regulatory Authority-jurisdictional retail rates,” and that “the monthly netting provision in section 1.7.10(d)(i) above does not determine whether a retail sale of station power has occurred in a month.”19 These changes closely track the Commission’s directives that PJM’s proposed Compliance Revisions “should clarify that the monthly netting provision in section 1.7.10(d)(i) of the Tariff does not determine whether a retail sale of station power has occurred” in a given month, and “should make clear that PJM has no responsibility for the determination of any state-jurisdictional retail rates.”20 These revisions explicitly eliminate the ambiguity identified in the September 17 Order, i.e., that “the PJM Tariff’s self-supply monthly netting provision can be read to, and indeed has been relied on by certain PJM generators to assert the right to, determine 19 Compliance Filing, proposed Operating Agreement, Schedule 1, section 1.7.10(d)(iv). 20 September 17 Order at P 108. 5 whether a retail sale of station power has occurred and avoid the retail purchase of station power.”21 That ambiguity was the stated basis for the September 17 Order’s finding that the station power provision “may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential” justifying the new FPA section 206 proceeding in Docket No. EL20-56-000 “to address this concern.”22 The Compliance Revisions thus use the Commission’s own specific formulation of revised tariff language to address the very concern that prompted the FPA section 206 proceeding.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Testimony of Evelyn Robinson, Managing Partner – State Government Policy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C March 4, 2021
    Before the Indiana Senate Utilities Committee Testimony of Evelyn Robinson, Managing Partner – State Government Policy PJM Interconnection, L.L.C March 4, 2021 For Public Use Testimony of Evelyn Robinson, Managing Partner – State Government Policy Introduction Good day Chairman Koch, Ranking Member Perfect and esteemed members of the Utilities Committee. My name is Evelyn Robinson, and I am the Managing Partner within the State Government Policy Department at PJM Interconnection, L.L.C (“PJM”). Thank you for having me today. I am here before this committee to speak on PJM’s role as a regional transmission organization (“RTO”) and to discuss PJM’s winter preparedness and performance during the recent cold weather event. As an RTO, PJM’s primary focus is the reliable operation of the nation’s largest electric grid for 65 million people in 13 states and Washington, D.C. – including portions of Indiana. As illustrated in Figure 1 of my testimony, our service territory extends from New Jersey to Illinois, encompassing the Indiana/Michigan electric utility portion of the AEP transmission zone. This scale allows us to provide reliable electric service from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River; from the Great Lakes to the Outer Banks. Figure 1. Map of PJM Footprint Like the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (“MISO”), PJM is situated within what is called the Eastern Interconnection, one of the three major electric grids in the continental United States. As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection and the Texas Interconnection typically operate independent of each other. The Eastern Interconnection extends from the Atlantic coast to the Rocky Mountains and operates as one harmonized machine.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PJM Board of Managers Approves Proposal to Address Capacity Market Reform Decision Shows Successful Conclusion in Stakeholder Process (Valley Forge, PA – July 8, 2021) – PJM Interconnection’s Board of Managers has approved a proposal to address long-standing concerns with the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) in the PJM capacity market. Following presentations on nine proposals from PJM and its stakeholders, the PJM proposal received the highest sector-weighted vote by members. The PJM Board selected the proposal because it accommodates state policy and self-supply business models, addresses attempted exercises of buyer-side market power, and creates a sustainable market design by keeping clearing prices consistent with supply and demand fundamentals. The PJM proposal achieved broad consensus under a unique, accelerated stakeholder process, called the Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP). This was the first time the PJM Board has employed the CIFP process, an alternative to the normal stakeholder process designed to expeditiously resolve issues that are contentious or time sensitive. “In the first-ever use of the CIFP process, stakeholders have successfully tackled a complex issue in a compressed time frame, achieving both a workable solution and broad consensus behind that solution,” said PJM President and CEO Manu Asthana. “This proposal ensures that our capacity market accommodates state policy and self-supply business models, avoids customer costs of double-procurement, addresses attempted exercises of buyer-side market power, and creates a sustainable market design by keeping clearing prices consistent with supply and demand fundamentals,” Asthana said. PJM expects to work diligently to make a FERC filing with the goal of incorporating the changes into the 2023/2024 Delivery Year Base Residual Auction, to be held in December 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio State Report
    Ohio State Report July 2017 www.pjm.com PJM©2017 Table of Contents 1. Planning • Generation Portfolio Analysis • Transmission Analysis • Load Forecast 2. Markets • Capacity Market Results • Market Analysis 3. Operations • Emissions Data www.pjm.com 2 PJM©2017 Executive Summary (July 2017) • Existing Capacity: Natural gas represents approximately 34 percent of the total installed capacity in Ohio while coal represents approximately 56 percent. This differs from PJM where natural gas and coal are relatively even at 35 and 34 percent respectively. • Interconnection Requests: Natural gas represents approximately 86 percent of new interconnection requests in Ohio. • Deactivations: Approximately 94.6 MW of capacity in Ohio retired in 2016. This represents more than 24 percent of the 392 MW that retired RTO-wide in 2016. • RTEP 2016: Ohio RTEP 2016 projects total more than $160 million in investment. Approximately 44 percent of that represents supplemental projects. • Load Forecast: Ohio load growth is nearly flat, averaging between .1 and .5 percent per year over the next 10 years. This aligns with PJM RTO load growth projections. www.pjm.com 3 PJM©2017 Executive Summary (July 2017) • 2020/21 Capacity Market: Compared to the PJM footprint, Ohio’s distribution of generation, demand response and energy efficiency is similar. • 6/1/14 – 5/31/17 Performance: Ohio’s average daily locational marginal prices were consistently at or below PJM average daily LMPs. Coal resources represented 44 percent of generation produced in Ohio while imports averaged 25 percent. • Emissions: 2016 carbon dioxide emissions are slightly up from 2015; sulfur dioxides are slightly down while nitrogen oxides continue to hold flat from 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • State Interconnection Regulations: Scope and Screens
    State Interconnection Regulations: Scope and Screens Table of Contents Introduction and Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Scope of Local Regulations on Interconnection Procedures .......................................................................................... 3 Delaware (Delaware Code, Title 26. Public Utilities, Chap. 1 Public Service Commission)....................................... 3 Indiana (Indiana Administrative Code, Title 170, Rule 4.3 “Customer-Generator Interconnection Standards” .......... 4 Illinois (IL Administrative Code, Title 83, Chapter I, Subchapter c, Part 466) ............................................................ 4 Maryland (Code of Maryland, Title 20, Subtitle 50, Chapter 20.50.09) ...................................................................... 4 Michigan (Public Service Commission, “Electric Interconnection and Net Metering Standards”) .............................. 5 New Jersey (NJ Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 5) ........................................................................................ 5 Ohio (OH Administrative Code, Title 4901, Chapter 22) ............................................................................................ 5 Pennsylvania (PA Code Title 52, Chapter 75) ........................................................................................................... 6 Virginia (VA Administrative Code, Title 20, Agency 5, Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Application of East Kentucky Power Cooperative
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of: APPLICATION OF EAST KENTUCKY POWER ) COOPERATIVE, INC. TO TRANSFER ) CASENO. FUNCTIONAL CONTROL OF CERTAIN ) 2012-00169 TRANSMISSION FACILITIES TO PJM ) INTERCONNECTION, LLC ) ___1-ORDER On May 3, 2012, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (“EKPC”) filed an application seeking approval, pursuant to KRS 278.2 18, to transfer functional control of certain transmission facilities to the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”) effective June 1, 2013. EPKC is organized under KRS Chapter 279 as an electric generating and transmission cooperative and is a utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.’ Intervention in this case was requested by, and granted to: the Attorney General’s Office, Rate Intervention Division (“AG”); PJM; Gallatin Steel Company (“Gallatin Steel”); and Kentucky Utilities Company and Louisville Gas and Electric Company (“KU/LG&E”). By Order dated June 7, 2012, the Commission established a procedural schedule for this case which included two rounds of discovery on EKPC, the opportunity for intervenors to file testimony, one round of discovery on intervenors, and a public hearing. Informal conferences were held at the Commission’s offices on October 12, ’ KRS 279 210(1) 19, and 26, 2012. A public hearing was held at the Commission’s offices on November 7, 2012, and EKPC has requested the Commission to issue a decision in this case by December 31, 2012, to provide adequate time for EKPC to complete the preliminary steps needed to accomplish the transfer of control by June I,2013. Standard of Re- EKPC’s application is subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction under KRS 278.218, which governs a change in ownership or control of assets of an electric utility where those assets have an original book value of $1,000,000 or more.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Northeast Coordinated Electric System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO and PJM
    Final 03-27-09 2008 Northeast Coordinated Electric System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO and PJM Contributors: ISO-NE: M. Henderson, J. Platts, W. Henson, M. Garber NYISO: J. Adams, J. Buechler, P. Carney, W. Lamanna PJM: P. McGlynn, M. Nix, G. Velummylum, M. Osman Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 5 3. SUMMARIES OF RTOS’ SYSTEM PLANS ...................................................................................... 6 3.1 ISO-New England 2008 Regional System Plan .................................................................................. 6 3.2 NYISO 2008 Comprehensive Reliability Plan ................................................................................... 7 3.3 PJM 2007 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) ............................................................... 8 3.4 New Interconnections between the ISO/RTOs ................................................................................... 8 3.5 Links to the Regional Plans ................................................................................................................ 8 4. SUMMARIES OF INTERREGIONAL STUDIES ............................................................................ 10 4.1 Loss-of-Source Analyses .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 105 Ferc ¶ 61, 251 United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    20031125-3087 Issued by FERC OSEC 11/25/2003 in Docket#: ER03-262-007 105 FERC ¶ 61, 251 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; William L. Massey, and Nora Mead Brownell. The New PJM Companies Docket Nos. ER03-262-007 American Electric Power Service Corp. ER03-262-008 On behalf of its operating companies ER03-262-009 Appalachian Power Company Columbus Southern Power Company Indiana Michigan Power Company Kentucky Power Company Kingsport Power Company Ohio Power Company, and Wheeling Power Company Commonwealth Edison Company, and Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. The Dayton Power and Light Company, and PJM Interconnection, LLC American Electric Power Company Docket Nos. EC98-40-000 and ER98-2770-000 Central and South West Corporation ER98-2786-000 ORDER MAKING PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND GIVING PUBLIC NOTICE AND SETTING MATTER FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER PURPA SECTION 205(A) (Issued November 25, 2003) 1. In this order, the Commission takes the following actions: (A) Pursuant to Section 203(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 in supplement to its orders approving the merger of American Electric 116 U.S.C. § 824b (2000). 20031125-3087 Issued by FERC OSEC 11/25/2003 in Docket#: ER03-262-007 Docket No. ER03-262-001, et al. - 2 - Power Company with Central and South West Corporation (CSW),2 the Commission finds that, to secure the maintenance of adequate service and the coordination in the public interest of facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, American Electric Power Company-East (AEP or AEP-East)3 must fulfill its voluntary commitment to join a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), namely, PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM).
    [Show full text]
  • Application of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of: APPLICATION OF EAST KENTUCKY ) POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR A ) CASE NO. DECLARATORY ORDER CONFIRMING ) 2017-00129 THE EFFECT OF KENTUCKY LAW AND ) COMMISSION PRECEDENT ON RETAIL ) ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS' PARTICIPATION ) IN WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MARKETS ) ORDER On March 13, 2017, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. ("EKPC") filed a verified application, pursuant to 807 KAR 5:011 , Sections 14 and 19, for a declaratory order addressing the legality of retail electric customers to participate in wholesale electric markets. Specifically, EKPC requests the Commission to declare that: 1. Under Kentucky law and Commission precedent, retail electric customers within EKPC's service territory are barred from participating in PJM's wholesale markets, either directly or indirectly through a third party, unless through a tariff or special contract approved by the Commission; and 2. Energy-efficiency resource providers within EKPC's service territory may participate in the PJM Capacity Market only pursuant to a Commission approved tariff or special contract, specifically to ensure that other retail electric customers within EKPC's service territory are not: (a ) unfairly or unlawfully disadvantaged and discriminated against; {b) subjected to inefficient service; and (c) forced to unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably subsidize the energy-efficiency resource provider's participation in the PJM wholesale market; and 3. PJM is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction to enforce its prior Orders in cases in which PJM has been granted voluntary intervention and has given acknowledgements and consents; 1 and 4. PJM's decision to allow one or more retail energy-efficiency resource providers located within EKPC's service territory to participate in its Capacity Market in a manner inconsistent with Commission precedent is unlawful, unreasonable and a violation of Kentucky law; and 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 2017 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan Do Not Quote Or Cite
    D R A F T 2017 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO, and PJM March 14, 2018 Draft 2017 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan Do not quote or cite. Contents Figures .......................................................................................................................................................................... iv Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................... iv Preface ................................................................................................................................................................... v 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Interregional Transmission Planning and Cost-Allocation Requirements ........................................................... 4 2.1 Interregional Coordination Requirements ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Cost-Allocation Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 5 3. Implementation of the Interregional Planning Process ...................................................................................... 7 3.1 PJM ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Supply – Demand Forecast Report for 2017 – 2026
    Public Service Commission of West Virginia Electric Supply – Demand Forecast Report for 2017 – 2026 Issued February 2017 201 Brooks Street P.O. Box 812 Charleston, WV 25323 1-800-344-5113 Chairman Michael A. Albert Commissioner Brooks F. McCabe, Jr. Commissioner Kara Cunningham Williams 1 Executive Summary The major generation-owning electric utility systems in West Virginia have completed major acquisitions of generation in recent years. At the same time, several older generating facilities have been retired. Cancellation of long-standing capacity agreements with affiliates has occurred, which has contributed to the need for alternative capacity resources. Appalachian Power Company (APCo) and Wheeling Power Company (WPCo) will have marginally adequate capacity for summer requirements in the near future, but will have low reserve margins in the next several years and may have low winter reserve margins during the forecast period. Monongahela Power Company (MPC) and Potomac Edison (PE) also have adequate capacity for summer requirements in the near future, but reserve margins will gradually shrink, becoming negative during the forecast period. If implemented, new EPA standards to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants will affect generation resources. As those standards are proposed, it is likely that generating utilities in West Virginia will need to modify existing generation to meet the EPA goals on both an interim and final basis. Because the timing and extent of rules implementing the EPA standard are unknown at this time, the impacts of any carbon limitations are not included in this report. The Presidential election in November 2016 will likely have a significant impact on the EPA, including how its standards may affect the electric utility and coal industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky State Report
    Kentucky State Report July 2017 www.pjm.com PJM©2016 Table of Contents 1. Planning • Generation Portfolio Analysis • Transmission Analysis • Load Forecast 2. Markets • Capacity Market Results • Market Analysis 3. Operations • Emissions Data www.pjm.com 2 PJM©2017 Executive Summary (July 2017) • Existing Capacity: Coal represents approximately 55 percent of the total installed capacity in the PJM portion of Kentucky while natural gas represents approximately 42 percent. This differs from PJM where natural gas are relatively even at 35 and 34 percent respectively. • Interconnection Requests: Natural gas represents 93 percent of new interconnection requests in Kentucky. • Deactivations: 147 MW of capacity in Kentucky retired in 2016. This compares to 392 MW of capacity retirements PJM-wide during the same year. • RTEP 2016: Kentucky RTEP 2016 projects total nearly $49 million of investment. Over half represents baseline-type projects. • Load Forecast: Kentucky load growth is nearly flat, averaging between 0.3 and 0.5 percent per year over the next 10 years. This aligns with PJM RTO load growth projections. www.pjm.com 3 PJM©2016 Executive Summary Cont. (July 2017) • 2020/21 Capacity Market: Only the Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative transmission zone portion of Kentucky load participates in the capacity market. Compared to the PJM footprint, the distribution of generation, demand response, and energy efficiency in the EKPC zone is similar. • 6/1/2014 – 5/31/2017 Market Performance: Kentucky’s average daily locational marginal prices were consistent with the PJM average daily LMPs. • Emissions: 2016 carbon dioxide emissions are slightly up from 2015; sulfur dioxides saw a significant year-over-year drop; nitrogen oxides hold flat from 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO, and PJM
    2019 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan ISO New England, New York ISO, and PJM FINAL April 28, 2020 2019 Northeastern Coordinated System Plan Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... iii Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... iii Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1. Interregional Transmission Planning and Cost-Allocation Requirements ................................................ 1 1.1 Interregional Coordination Requirements ................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Cost-Allocation Requirements ......................................................................................................................... 2 2. Implementation of the ISO/RTO Planning Processes................................................................................ 3 2.1 PJM ..............................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]