Pjm Generator Interconnection Agreement

Rebuttal of the presumption of market power. While Dogwood Energy LLC successfully defended the presumption of market power and, therefore, the maintenance in its market of its market tariff power for wholesale electricity trade, resulting in an order from FERC which highlighted the case of market-based pricing in the context of independent electricity producers. Compensation for list offers. Representatives of the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) in deFERC procedures in relation to market rules for clearing generators whose failed offers are rejected by ISO-NE Forward Capacity Auctions due to local reliability requirements. The participation of external resources in SPP markets. Representing a customer in the negotiation of tariffs, conditions and conditions for the participation of a generator external to the SPP energy imbalance market. The Commission adopted Decision No. 2003 on 24 July 2003. On request, the Commission extended the compliance deadline for RTT/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO transmission providers until 20 January 2004 [329]. On January 8, 2004, the Secretary`s Office issued a notice detailing compliance procedures under Procedure No. 2003. The notice stated that all non-tariff tariffs for RTO/ISO transmission providers “are considered [pro forma LGIP and pro forma-LGIA] on the day of the compliance period and that “[non-RTO/ISO transmission providers] have instructed them to make ministerial notifications reflecting these revisions to their OATTs in their future notifications to the Commission.” [330] With regard to NGOs/ISOs, the Commission stated that “[d]en [until] its requests for compliance, the existing interconnection standards and procedures [NT/ISOs] remain in force.” [331] 64.

We reject the GSP`s request for this. We do not believe that the “Order 845” option for creating revisions is not compatible with a cluster study approach. SPG did not mention specific provisions in the pro-forma-LGIA formula that would prevent customers from using the ability to build in a cluster study. In addition, the GSP has not provided evidence that independent network updates required by more than one link client in a cluster are frequent enough to require pro forma-LGIA revisions tailored to such a scenario. In addition, the GSP scenario is not bound by the changes taken into account in this proceeding, because, to the extent that such a situation occurs, several link customers may have attempted to use the creative option for the same standalone network upgrade under the option prior to command 845. However, if a transmission provider that reviews connection requirements in clusters feels this is a problem, it should propose compliance reviews to correct the way it handles multi-interconnection customer requests, in order to exercise the option to create for the same level of standalone network. 92. We reject the request of the developers of the trial generation. First, we reiterate that many transportation providers already publish some overload and trimming data, such as marginal location price data and shipping reports.

[201] In addition, we note once again that a considerable amount of public information available for the East Link is contained in NERC Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) protocols, including duration, direction and MW of reductions. [202] We also note that several commentators have made a credible argument that the introduction of the proposed requirements would not provide useful information to interconnection customers. [203] We do not agree with Generation Developers that the Commission has not explained why the provision of such information is not technically feasible.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.