The meeting commenced with a detailed presentation and discussion focusing on resource adequacy and capacity planning, specifically addressing discrepancies and trends in the calculated ratings and portfolio assumptions. It was noted that the analysis presented during the meeting predates the increase in CT ratings for 2026-27. This led to the recognition that the discrepancies observed were due to inconsistencies between the portfolios assumed for 2027 and beyond and the official CT rating for 2026-27. The timing of this analysis was acknowledged as a critical factor, and it was suggested that ideally, these explanations should have been provided before the 2026-27 ratings were published.
The discussion then moved to the declining Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) value of Demand Response (DR). The drop in DR’s ELCC value was attributed to a shift in the Energy Unserved (EUE) and Loss of Load Hours (LOLH) falling outside of DR’s performance hours, particularly during the winter. This shift increases the risk outside the winter performance window, thus reducing the ELCC value for DR. This explanation was rooted in data presented in a June meeting, which was revisited to address concerns and questions raised during this session.
Further, the participants explored the assumptions about future portfolios and their implications for resource adequacy. The analysis revealed that starting in 2029, the forecasted peak load would surpass the assumed portfolio’s capacity to meet the 1-in-10-year reliability criteria. This trend is reflected in the upward movement of the Installed Reserve Margin (IRM) and a corresponding downward trend in accredited UCAP factors. The IRM’s increase indicates a growing need for installed capacity, driven by the retirement of resources with high accreditation and the addition of new technologies with lower accredited UCAP values. This dynamic necessitates more installed capacity to replace retiring technologies, contributing to the higher IRM and lower UCAP trends.
The conversation also touched on the influence of retirement forecasts and capacity prices on future resource adequacy. Participants expressed concerns that changes in capacity prices could alter retirement forecasts and the introduction of new dispatchable resources. It was suggested that scenarios exploring different levels of retirement and potential new resources should be analyzed to better understand their impact on future adequacy. This led to a broader discussion about the vendor’s forecast, which PJM relies on for planning. Questions were raised about the forecast’s optimism, particularly regarding how the vendor accounts for the queue. The need for additional sensitivity analyses to prevent future surprises was underscored.
The meeting also addressed the topic of Capacity Interconnection Rights (CIRs) transfer and the potential for new operational constraints. Participants discussed whether new or adjusted deliverability tiers could be introduced to accommodate CIRs under specific operational constraints. PJM acknowledged that this concept would require further discussion and consideration, particularly in defining new criteria that could allow resources to maintain CIRs even if they are not fully deliverable under current criteria.
In addition to these discussions, the meeting included an extensive review of the process for transferring CIRs and the challenges associated with ensuring deliverability for new resources. Questions were raised about how PJM and its vendors forecast these resources, especially in light of the complexities introduced by new and emerging technologies. Participants called for more detailed analyses and transparency in how these forecasts are generated and how they impact planning decisions.
The meeting concluded with a discussion on the next steps. PJM plans to work closely with proposal sponsors to ensure clarity and alignment in the language of their proposals, particularly where there are synergies. The timeline for voting on these proposals remains tentative, depending on the nature and extent of any changes introduced. Additionally, two new design components introduced by RMI will be evaluated for potential integration into existing proposals, with PJM facilitating this process.
Overall, the meeting reflected a thorough and collaborative effort to address the complexities of future resource planning, reliability criteria, and the evolving needs of the grid. Participants demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring that all aspects of resource adequacy and capacity planning are carefully considered and that any potential risks are mitigated through detailed analysis and informed decision-making.
