Commissioner Richard Glick Statement
April 10, 2020
Docket Nos. ER20-584-000 and EL19-100-000
Dissenting in Part Regarding PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
I dissent in part from today’s order because I would grant PJM’s motion to hold these proceedings in abeyance through January 29, 2021. This now-consolidated proceeding will require PJM to determine the capacity capability of all resource types for capacity market qualification purposes. That is no mean feat and will require a considerable investment of time and resources on the part of all parties involved, including PJM. In addition, doing that task well will go a long way toward ensuring that resource adequacy contributions are properly evaluated and compensated. Suffice it to say, this is not the place to go looking for short cuts.
Nevertheless, the Commission truncates PJM’s requested abeyance period without significant discussion or any explanation of why it is reasonable to expect PJM and its stakeholders to sort out these issues in the time allotted. All we get is the conclusory assertion that this schedule will “permit PJM and the PJM stakeholders time to consider a methodology or methodologies to apply to all resource types.”1
Maybe, but whether it is enough time to do that job properly is far from clear.
In any case, it does not appear that Commission action is needed to hurry things along. PJM has begun a stakeholder process to develop an Effective Load Carrying Capability construct that can calculate the capacity capability of resources in its capacity market. The stakeholder task force that PJM established had its first virtual meeting earlier this week.2
I see no reason to assume that stakeholders will drag their feet or that a shorter timeline will help us get to a better answer. That is especially so because this is the type of proceeding in which PJM, its stakeholders, and the Commission itself, would be best served by taking the time to explore the possibility of a reaching a consensus that could lead to a section 205 filing.3
That certainly seems preferable to a rushed process that ends up with these issues being litigated in a paper hearing.
In addition, I am sure that I don’t need to remind anyone that we are in the middle of a national emergency due to COVID-19. Although I recognize that PJM and its stakeholders are doing their best to press ahead under the circumstances, it certainly does not appear that they will be able to get in a room to hash out these issues at any point in the near future, especially since many stakeholders have more pressing concerns on their plates. As such, these hardly seem like the circumstances in which to rush the timeline for dealing with important market design principles.
Finally, I cannot help but observe the irony in the Commission now hurrying PJM and its stakeholders along so that the capacity values will be ready for the next capacity auction—the date of which is still uncertain. I am sure that those reading this statement need no reminder of the Commission’s recent struggles in meeting deadlines linked to PJM capacity auctions or that the Commission, more than any other entity, is responsible for the fact that what should be the 2019 Base Residual Auction will likely be run, at the earliest, in 2021. Particularly in light of that record, I would give PJM some deference on the time needed to do justice to this important task. Instead, the Commission is once again doing PJM the disservice of substituting the Commission’s preferences for PJM’s judgment, which was unopposed by its stakeholders.
That said, I encourage PJM and its stakeholders to do their best to adequately address these important issues on the Commission’s timeline. If additional time ends up being necessary, I will remain open to granting PJM and its stakeholders the time needed to do the job right.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.