On November 29, 2021, FERC issued a notice stating that PJM Interconnection, LLC’s requests for a new Targeted Minimum Bid Price Rule (“Targeted MOPR”) policy hearing, which came into effect from full rights on September 29, 2021 (see October 29, 2021 edition of WER) were deemed to be refused as of right. FERC’s notice triggers a 60-day deadline under the Federal Power Act for parties to request a review on appeal. The November 29 notice followed requests for rehearing filed by parties including the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Electric Power Supply Association, the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, the Vistra Corporation and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. In addition to requests for rehearing, the PJM Power Providers Group has previously appealed the Focused MOPR to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and submitted comments in response to the joint statement by President Glick and the Commissioner Clements in favor of Focused MOPR.
The parties seeking review of the FERC Opinion of September 29, 2021 (collectively, the “Hearing Claimants”) focused on both the substantive aspects of PJM’s targeted MOPR policy, as well as the procedural aspects associated with the entry into force of the policy by law enforcement. On the merits, the requests for rehearing related, among other things, to whether the targeted MOPR is adequate to prevent the exercise of buy-side market power, and whether FERC has adequately explained its deviation by compared to the precedent imposing the “extended MOPR”.
For example, some rehearing seekers have argued that the targeted MOPR is unfair and unreasonable, in part because the certification process does not give PJM a meaningful ability to review bids to ensure they are competitive. Others have argued that the targeted MOPR contains loopholes that make it unclear whether the buy-side market power mitigation framework will be applied to all bids, opening the door to systematic market distortions that undermine the market. confidence in the capacity market of PJM. Re-interviewed petitioners also said that accepting the targeted MOPR would result in an unexplained deviation and repudiation of previous FERC orders approving the expanded MOPR framework. They also argued that FERC has failed to balance the interests of consumers and investors, and has failed to respond meaningfully to objections regarding the ability of the targeted MOPR to manage market power on the buyer’s side. .
In contrast, other rehearing seekers argued that FERC erred in not accepting MOPR out of hand, and said consumers and PJM market participants would be better served by putting their efforts into positive market reform rather than seeking to relaunch MOPR over and over again.
Procedurally, the requesters for a rehearing raised concerns about what they characterized as the inability of the Commissioners to issue timely statements explaining their positions. For example, some rehearing seekers – despite taking opposing positions on substantive issues – argued that the weeks delay in issuing statements deprived parties of their due process rights by preventing them from being able to release the statements. ” address the reasoning of the Commissioners before the deadline for submitting rehearing requests. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative also challenged FERC’s failure to issue an order accepting or denying PJM’s targeted MOPR proposal, noting that due to FERC’s inaction, FERC had not spoken out. on proposed revisions to the targeted MOPR tariff wording that would clarify the application of MOPR to electric co-ops, even when PJM agreed to FERC accept the proposed clarifications.
As reported in the October 29, 2021 edition of WER, the PJM Power Providers group appealed the targeted MOPR to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The PJM Power Providers Group also submitted a response to President Glick and Commissioner Clements’ joint statement in support of PJM’s targeted MOPR, arguing, among other things, that the joint statement misrepresented Commissioner Christie’s position on questions and ignored the economic evidence that the PJM Group of Electricity Suppliers submitted in the case.
The requests for rehearing and the FERC opinion of November 29 are available in the FERC file here.