Commissioner James Danly Statement
March 24, 2022
Docket No. ER18-1106-002
I concur with the result and holding of this order.[1] I write separately to highlight that the Independent Market Monitor’s concerns in this case would properly be rejected even if the Commission had not recently ordered PJM to adopt a unit-specific review of all offers in the capacity market.[2] I opposed unit-specific review of all offers because doing so likely will result in over-mitigation.[3] In this order, the Commission notes its recent adoption of unit-specific offer review as a recent mitigation change in PJM.[4] Unit-specific review is not required to adequately mitigate market power concerns, and today’s order in no way indicates otherwise.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See Kestrel Acquisition, LLC, 178 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2022) (Kestrel).
[2] See Indep. Mkt. Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 176 FERC ¶ 61,137 (2021), order on reh’g, 178 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2022).
[3] See Indep. Mkt. Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 176 FERC ¶ 61,137 (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting), order on reh’g, 178 FERC ¶ 61,121 (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting).
[4] Kestrel, 178 FERC ¶ 61,214 at P 42.