Docket No. EL23-13-000
I concur with the finding in today’s order that the Commission’s acceptance in the 2023 ELCC Order of PJM’s filing resolved the core of Dr. Shanker’s complaint.[1]
I dissent from today’s finding that in the period prior to the effective date of PJM’s tariff revisions approved by the Commission’s 2023 ELCC Order, PJM did not violate its tariff. I am not convinced there was no violation in the prior period and I would have sought additional evidence on certain issues before making a finding here.
Nonetheless, I also concur in this order’s statement that even if a tariff violation had been found, there should have been no re-runs ordered to adjust prior auction settlements and payments.[2]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
[1] Order at P 21 (“[A]s Dr. Shanker acknowledges, the Commission’s acceptance of PJM’s filing in the 2023 ELCC Order resolves Dr. Shanker’s concerns from April 10, 2023, forward, by incorporating a just and reasonable approach that prospectively reflects CIRs in the hourly energy output considered in the ELCC calculation.”).
[2] Id. P 39. I note that while PJM’s Independent Market Monitor (IMM) agrees that PJM violated its tariff (see, e.g., id. P 25), the IMM does not support granting retroactive relief (see, e.g., id. PP 18, 39). See, e.g., IMM January 13, 2023 Comments at 2 (“The [IMM] does not support modifying the results of prior auctions. The [IMM] recommends that the offered MW from intermittent resources and storage resources be correctly defined for the 2025/2026 Delivery Year and subsequent delivery years. The [IMM] believes that PJM agrees with the proposed approach going forward. The [IMM’s] position is that it is critical to resolve the issue on a going forward basis and that assigning intention or fault to prior actions is not relevant in this matter.”).