Commissioner James Danly Statement
October 21, 2021
Docket No. ER10-2042-035 et al.
I concur with the result and holding of this order. 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.[1] I opposed unit-specific review of all offers because doing so will likely result in over-mitigation.[2] In this order, the Commission notes its adoption of unit-specific review as a recent mitigation change in PJM.[3] 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 Indep. Mkt. Monitor for PJM v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 176 FERC ¶ 61,137 (2021).
[2] See id. (Danly, Comm’r, dissenting).
[3] See Calpine Energy Servs, L.P., 177 FERC ¶ 61,022, at P 32 (2021).