PJM Alternative to Expanding MOPR Leaves Questions Unanswered

Aug 30, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

PJM already applies the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) to mitigate the effect of new resources with out-of-market revenues on capacity prices. While some generators have proposed expanding the MOPR to cover existing resources that are receiving out-of-market revenues, PJM concludes in its recent proposal that the application of the MOPR to existing generation is likely to result in the commitment of more resources than are needed to maintain reliability because state regulators may keep a unit that is serving public policy goals running even if that unit fails to clear in the PJM auction. Moreover, such a scenario would require that load “pay twice” for capacity, since it would pay both the PJM capacity price for all of its capacity obligations and the retail rate charges that were implemented to fund the state program.

PJM is therefore proposing a two-stage approach to determine cleared commitments and clearing prices in the capacity auction. The first stage would be used to determine capacity commitments. Units receiving out-of-market revenues and a commensurate amount of local demand would be removed from the auction, and the units in question would be considered “committed” for the year. The auction mechanism would then be run using the remaining resources and demand. This stage would determine which of those remaining units (those without out-of-market revenues) would be committed to provide capacity for the year.

For the second stage of the auction, the units receiving out-of-market revenues and the related demand would be added back into the auction, together with the committed units without out-of-market revenues, to determine the capacity clearing prices. The units receiving out-of-market revenues would then be bid into the auction at a reference price approximating the unit’s going-forward costs. The resulting clearing price would be paid to all committed units without out-of-market revenues.

The units receiving out-of-market revenues, however, would not receive PJM capacity payments, and the related demand would not pay PJM for an equivalent amount of capacity from those units. PJM explains that:

[T]he subsidized resources that were held out of the first stage of the auction would receive no revenue from the PJM capacity market. Rather, the regulatory authority that had determined that these resources should be subsidized would determine how these resources would be compensated and be solely responsible for providing that compensation. Similarly, the related demand would also not be responsible for paying the clearing price for capacity resulting from the auction, because the regulatory agency subsidizing the resources would decide what price customers representing the related demand should pay for the capacity associated with the subsidized resource and charge that price in retail rates.3

PJM’s proposal is short—only six pages—and thus leaves additional details to be resolved. PJM observes that the most significant question to be resolved is what constitutes a “subsidized” unit. Because the proposal denies PJM capacity payments to subsidized units entirely, this is a crucial question. As written, it seems to create an economic disincentive for states to provide out-of-market revenues that are less than the anticipated PJM capacity price (i.e., any amounts that would be less than the amount that a generator could expect to receive in PJM capacity payments). It is also unclear whether the policy would apply to indirect subsidies, such as tax credits for renewables.

It is also not entirely clear how this proposal would work in practice. PJM specifies that related load would be removed from the auction and would not be responsible for capacity payments for the subsidized capacity, but it is not clear how PJM would determine which load-serving entities would be considered related load.  Another question is whether, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing,4 state regulators would have the authority to determine the price for capacity, as PJM suggests.


 
1 Stu Bresler, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Potential Alternative Approach to Expanding the Minimum Offer Price Rule to Existing Resources (2016).

2 Grid 20/20: Focus on Public Policy Goals and Market Efficiency, http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/stakeholder-meetings/symposiums-forums/grid-2020-public-policy-goals-mkt-efficiency.aspx (last visited Aug. 30, 2016).

3 PJM Proposal at 3.

4 136 S.Ct. 1288 (2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

April 15, 2025

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO)1 directing several federal agencies and subagencies that regulate energy, environmental, and conservation matters,2 including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to establish conditional sunset dates for “regulations governing energy production.” The stated objective of the EO is to require agencies to periodically reexamine their regulations to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. For FERC, the order covers regulations promulgated under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA)3, as amended, while DOE must consider regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), as amended (collectively the Covered Regulations).4 To the extent the DOE has been directed to promulgate regulations under various sections of the NGA, FPA and FUA, and FERC has been directed to promulgate regulations specific to the statutes attributed to the DOE in the EO, the EO is silent. The EO expressly does not apply to those “regulatory permitting regimes authorized by statute.”5

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

April 10, 2025

On April 8, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to take steps to expand the use of its emergency authority under Federal Power Act (FPA) Section 202(c) to require the retention of generation resources deemed necessary to maintain resource adequacy within at risk-regions of the bulk power system regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).1 The EO appears to envision a more active role for DOE in overseeing and supporting the resource adequacy of the grid that deviates from the historic use of Section 202(c) and touches on issues at the intersection of state and federal authority over resource planning.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 10, 2025

On March 5, 2025, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) approved Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC’s (GPLNG) request to extend a deadline to begin exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its terminal facility currently under construction in Sabine Pass, Texas for 18 months, from September 30, 2025, to March 31, 2027 (the Order). The Order amends GPLNG’s two existing long-term orders authorizing the export of domestically produced LNG to countries with which the United States does and does not have free trade agreements (FTA).1  The Order does not amend the authorizations’ end date, which remains December 31, 2050. Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the DOE may authorize exports to non-FTA countries following completion of a “public interest” review, whereas exports to FTA countries are deemed to be in the public interest and the DOE is directed to issue authorizations without modification or delay.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 4, 2025

Join projects & energy transition partner Shariff Barakat at Infocast’s Solar & Wind, where he will moderate the “Tax Equity Market Dynamics” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 13, 2025

Oil & gas companies continue to identify and capitalize on opportunities related to the deployment of new energy technologies, with their approaches broadly maturing and coalescing around maximizing synergies, leveraging available subsidies and responding to regulatory drivers.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 11, 2025

On January 30, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) approved a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (Agreement) between the Office of Enforcement (OE) and Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. (Stronghold) resolving an investigation into whether Stronghold had violated the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tariff and Commission regulations by limiting the quantity of energy made available to the market to serve a co-located Bitcoin mining operation.1 This order appears to be the first instance of a public enforcement action involving co-located load and generation and comes at a time when both FERC and market operators2 are scrutinizing the treatment of co-located load due to the rapid increase in demand associated with data center development.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 5, 2025

2024 was about post-consolidation deal flow and a steady uptick in activity across the oil & gas market. This year, mergers & acquisitions (M&A) activity looks set to take on a different tone as major consolidation plays bed down.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 30, 2025

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a capital resurgence, driven by stabilizing interest rates and renewed attention from institutional investors. Private equity is leading the charge with private credit filling the void in traditional energy finance and hybrid capital instruments gaining in popularity. Family offices are also playing a crucial role, providing long-term, flexible investments.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.