Document Search
Site Search
Advanced Search
Updates & Alerts
News & Media
Upcoming Meetings
Deregulation Library
Member Services
Ambit Energy
Blue Rock Energy
BP Energy
Colonial Group Inc
Columbia Utilities
Crius Energy
Customzed Energy Solutions
EC Infosystems
First Energy
IDT Energy
Infinite Energy
Integrys Energy Services
Shell Energy
LCH Clearnet
National Fuel Resources, Inc
Nodal Exchange
North American Power
Planet Energy
Progress Energy
Public Power
Summitt Energy
Shell Energy
Spark Energy
Sperian Energy
Star Energy
Stream Energy
Suburban energy
Verde Energy USA
Washington Gas Energy Services Inc.
Xoom Energy
October 23, 2015
NEM New England Energy Policy Summit

Many thanks to all of the attendees and sponsors of NEM's New England Energy Policy Summit last week in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was a successful event, gathering thought leaders, policy officials, leading energy suppliers and technologists to discuss the convergence of energy, telecom and digital technologies. A Press Release on the NEM event is hotlinked here.

We have also posted many of the speaker presentations that were made available to us. The presentations of Professor William Hogan, NYISO Sr. VP Rana Mukerji, ISONE VP Anne George and DCPSC Chairman Betty Ann Kane are available on the NEM Website.

FERC Denies Champion Energy Complaint Against PJM

The Commission issued an Order rejecting a complaint filed by Champion Energy against PJM related to actions taken during the polar vortex. Champion's complaint objected to PJM’s allocation of real-time Balancing Operating Reserve (BOR) charges to it for the month of January 2014 under PJM's OATT, and it sought a waiver of the applicable Tariff provisions and a refund in the amount of $3,130,125, plus interest. The Commission denied the complaint reasoning that,

"Champion asserts that during January 2014 it hedged 98.75 percent of its load before the real-time market and was actually long on some days, but was still assessed BOR charges. Champion argues that because it almost entirely supplied its load in January 2014, the application of PJM’s Tariff provisions to allow BOR charges to Champion is unjust and unreasonable. We find that Champion’s argument that its forward contracts absolve it from responsibility for any real-time BOR charges does not constitute grounds to find the relevant Tariff provisions, or PJM’s application of those provisions, unjust and unreasonable. Despite the fact that Champion was long on an aggregate daily basis, as a load serving entity with real-time load, Champion participates with other customers as part of an integrated grid and therefore relies on PJM to assure that its transactions can be delivered as scheduled. Champion, like all PJM customers, therefore relies upon, and benefits from, PJM’s actions to maintain grid reliability. PJM’s real-time BOR charges are driven by resource commitment and dispatch decisions made to ensure that power flows reliably in real-time. As such, PJM’s actions that caused real-time BOR costs in January 2014 benefited all real-time load, including Champion, by ensuring the continued operation and reliability of the system."

Commissioner Moeller dissented from the Commission's Order. Moeller argued,

"Allowing PJM’s current BOR cost allocation to continue harms market participants like Champion and decreases the efficiency of PJM’s markets. Allocating costs broadly to load-serving entities like Champion unfairly frustrates their efforts to hedge their positions; it does not ensure that the market participants who actually caused those uplift costs pay corresponding charges. The Commission defends PJM’s current allocation of BOR costs to load-serving entities like Champion – notwithstanding the record here and in the price formation proceeding – stating that “BOR charges are driven by resource commitment and dispatch decisions” and that “PJM’s actions that caused real-time BOR costs in January 2014 benefited all real-time load, including Champion.” The fact that Champion benefits from grid reliability does not indicate that their actions caused the uplift costs it was forced to bear. Champion and other load-serving entities should only be allocated uplift costs on the basis of those benefits when the parties who caused those costs cannot be identified. PJM’s failure to fully identify those cost causers renders its uplift allocation unjust and unreasonable."

The full text of the Order is available on the NEM Website.

New York
Click here to view all past updates.
Staff Proposal in REV on Utilities Distributed System Implementation Plan Filings

Staff filed its proposal in the REV proceeding on the utilities Distributed System Implementation Plan (DSIP) filings. The Commission's REV Track One Order requires the utilities, functioning as Distribution System Platform Providers (DSPs) to file DSIPs. Staff's proposal is intended to provide guidance to the utilities' filings. Each utility will make its own Initial DSIP filing to be followed by a joint utility Supplemental DSIP filing. The Supplemental DSIP should be aimed at development of shared standards and protocols to avoid seams across service territories. Staff also requests that commenters address how to structure the stakeholder process to ensure open and effective communications about the DSIPs.

The DSIPs should include detail about distribution planning, including detail on beneficial locations for DER deployment. Staff suggests that utilities include, "a plan to reveal (spatially and temporally) more granular (further disaggregated zonal) wholesale energy prices in the utility service territory in a way that will allow DER providers the ability to make informed decisions for investing in and siting new resources." Utilities would also be tasked with identifying, "the process of collaborating with stakeholders to develop and implement ways for various DERs to be substituted for traditional grid-based solutions in order to avoid or reduce utility capital or operating costs."

Staff's Proposal recognizes that data collection and sharing is paramount to achieving REV goals - both system data and customer data. While discussing the potential of Advanced Metering Infrastructure to provide more granular data, the paper contemplates different ownership options by which that may be achieved, rolled out by utilities, ESCOs or other third parties, or partial rollout of AMI and partial rollout of AMR. The utilities DSIPs should explain the extent and granularity of currently available customer-specific energy usage data, describe how existing data transfer processes can perform the transmittal of increasingly granular data, and how the data can be transferred to third parties. Staff requested comment on what needs to be required, "in order to improve consumer and third-party access to the most granular data in as near real-time as possible."

With specific reference to AMI, consideration should be given as to whether alternative tools can provide advanced meter functionality. Consideration should also be given as to whether metering technology components should be owned by the utility, by customers or third parties. Utility filings should examine AMI deployment under three scenarios: "a) full AMI implementation by the utility, b) utility implementation of AMI to 20% of customers, with remaining customers receiving AMR (automated meter reading) meters, and c) AMR implementation by the utility, with AMI deployed to individual customers by ESCOs and/or competitive DER providers."

Comments on Staff's Proposal on DSIP Filings are due December 7, 2015, and reply comments are due December 21, 2015. The full text of Staff's Proposal is available on the NEM Website.

* Member Login :

User ID: 



*****   Click Here to stop receiving NEM Regulatory Updates    *****

3333 K Street, N.W., Suite 110
Washington, D.C. 20007
Tel: (202) 333-3288     Fax: (202) 333-3266

© Copyright 2004 National Energy Marketers Association