
[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Notices]               
[Page 37808-37809]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-79]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3322-000]

 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Discussion Topics for 
Staff Technical Conference

    Take notice that a technical conference in the above captioned 
proceeding will be held on July 29, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m. (EDT) in 
the Commission Meeting Room at the Commission's headquarters, located 
at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The technical 
conference will be led by Commission staff. Commissioners may be in 
attendance. All interested parties are invited to attend. Registration 
is not required.
    On June 3, 2011, the Commission issued an order in this proceeding, 
which accepted and suspended proposed tariff changes submitted by PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), subject to refund and the outcome of a 
technical conference.\1\ This notice establishes the topics for 
discussion at the technical conference to be held in order to discuss 
the performance measurement of demand response in PJM's capacity 
market, the Reliability Pricing Model (RPM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 135 FERC ] 61,212 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss issues 
surrounding PJM's April 7, 2011 filing, which proposes to modify the 
reference point of capacity demand response load reductions so that 
each end-use customer's actual load reduction results in a metered load 
that is less than the customer's Peak Load Contribution (PLC).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PJM describes the PLC as the average of the end-user's 
actual load during the five coincident peak hours of the preceding 
delivery year. PJM April 7, 2011 Filing at note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the issues identified by the Commission in the June 
3 Order, there will be a discussion on the topics identified in the 
Appendix.
    Also, to supplement the record, PJM should provide information and 
data on the following issues, as relevant to the proceeding, by July 
11, 2011. PJM should provide examples and/or details regarding how an 
increase in the number of aggregators reporting compliance in excess of 
PLC presents a threat to system reliability. In addition, PJM should 
explain whether the 1,000 MW of demand response that was in excess of 
PLC in 2010 was concentrated in one zone or whether the demand response 
was spread out over several zones. PJM should also provide data 
regarding whether the customer reductions in 2010 that ranged from 150 
percent to 300 percent or more of their PLC, and which accounted for 28 
percent of total guaranteed load drop (GLD) reductions, were associated 
solely with aggregation or if these reductions were also associated 
with individual market participants.\3\ Further, PJM should provide 
information on the prevalence of PJM customers with limited curtailment 
capability, particularly with regards to customers associated with the 
48 percent of total GLD reductions that were recorded at less than or 
equal to 75 percent of the customer's PLCs, as detailed in the 2010 
State of the Market Report for PJM. Finally, PJM should describe the 
prevalence of peak-shaving activity in the PJM market and whether it is 
possible to distinguish between peak-shaving activity and changes in 
peak demand over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Monitoring Analytics, Vol II, at 135 (2010), available at 
http://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_
Market/2010/2010-som-pjm-volume2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other parties are also free to file data related to these issues. 
While responses should be provided by July 11, 2011, Commission staff 
may further discuss the responses, and may have additional questions, 
during the technical conference.
    Parties will have 15 days after the technical conference to respond 
to the issues raised at the conference as well as PJM's responses to 
the issues detailed above.
    Parties that have intervened in the proceeding and that are 
interested in participating on a panel should contact Tristan Cohen at 
Tristan.Cohen@ferc.gov or (202) 502-6598 by July 1, 2011. A subsequent 
notice will be issued announcing panelists and the format of the 
conference.
    The conference will be transcribed. Transcripts will be available 
immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-
800-336-6646). A free webcast of this event is also available through 
http://www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view 
this event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of 
Events and locating this event in the calendar. The event will contain 
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical 
support for the free webcasts. If you have any questions, visit http://
www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 
with the required accommodations.
    Parties seeking additional information regarding this conference 
should contact Tristan Cohen at Tristan.Cohen@ferc.gov or (202) 502-
6598.


[[Page 37809]]


    Dated: June 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix

Discussion Topics for Technical Conference on Performance Measurement 
of Demand Response in the PJM Capacity Market, July 29, 2011

I. Reliability Issues

    1. Whether the customer baseline load (CBL) or peak load 
contribution (PLC) is a more accurate capacity market performance 
measure of what a demand response customer would have consumed in 
the absence of an instruction to reduce load.
    2. Whether a demand response resource should be obligated to 
reduce below its PLC during an emergency event, even if the 
magnitude of supply that the resource is providing is otherwise 
equivalent to its capacity commitment.
    3. Whether the current PJM add-back process under the guaranteed 
load drop (GLD) option, which is used to calculate peak load for 
capacity for the following delivery year, accurately reflects the 
fact that the load reduction of an over-performing demand response 
customer (a customer that provides a level of response greater than 
the MW nominated for it in the capacity auction) has been used to 
support an under-performing customer (a customer that provides a 
level of response less than the nominated MW) in a portfolio 
aggregated to meet the capacity commitment.
    4. Whether PJM dispatchers account for PLCs during an emergency.
    5. Whether any load in PJM can be at load levels in excess of 
PLC during an emergency.

II. Capacity Obligations

    6. Discuss the capacity obligations of end-use customers whose 
demand response resources have been committed in a prior RPM 
auction.
    7. Whether the PLC limit on nominations in the capacity auction 
should serve as a basis for requiring load reductions of capacity 
resources to be below PLC.

III. Load Reductions and Incentives

    8. Whether the same MW reduction that is voluntarily made by a 
peak shaving customer in order to reduce capacity costs should also 
be eligible to receive incentives from PJM's Load Management 
programs.
    9. Whether the current GLD option provides an incentive for 
aggregators to offset under-performing resources with resources that 
over-perform.

IV. Impact of PJM's Proposal

    10. Whether PJM's proposal undermines the GLD methodology.
    11. Whether PJM's proposal unduly discriminates against 
resources on days other than the coincident peak days and whether 
PJM's proposal negatively affects Annual Demand Resource 
aggregations.

[FR Doc. 2011-16174 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

