PJM capacity auction results for the planning year of June 2019 to May 2020 announced 5/24/16, were down significantly, almost 40% across most PJM markets from the prior year. BAD news for generators as it means less revenue to them, but GOOD for consumers in lower costs.
PJM procured 167,306 MW of power at a clearing price of $100 per MW-day in the majority of the region, down from $164.77 per MW-day last year. It met a reserve margin of 22.4%, meaning that PJM has excess capacity in the amount of 22.4% of expected peak demand. It is also the highest reserve margin in PJM auction history, ensuring reliability and availability of power for customers during the term.
The results were somewhat surprising considering PJM’s capacity performance (CP) program. Under this program, which was approved last year, power producers that agreed to deliver electricity whenever PJM determines it is warranted would receive higher capacity payments. PJM’s thought or hope was that the increased revenue would result in generators re-investing into their plant infrastructure, secure fuel contracts, and thus increasing reliability during peak demand periods. However, non-performance under this program results in significant penalties. Penalties that did not exist under the old base capacity program.
The 2019/2020 auction is only the second such event to adhere to PJM Capacity Performance program. In this year’s auction, 80% of the resources had to clear according to “capacity performance” with the remaining 20% clearing under the old capacity product “base capacity”. Next year’s auction for 2020/2021 will move to 100% capacity performance. The takeaway from this year’s auction and the decrease in price is that there would appear to be adequate generation to meet demand, with more coming on-line.
That’s right, last week the technology giant filed for permission with federal regulators to sell electricity to consumers on the grid. Apple Energy as it will be known, is mainly intended to feed its own data centers, however, it wants to be able to take surplus power it produces and sell it back to other industrials at market based rates. Apple currently owns or controls generation facilities that qualify for such a task.
As a leading innovator Apple CEO, Tim Cook said, “We take the same innovative approach to the environment that we do with our products.” The Apple mission is to power every one of its facilities using entirely green energy, solar, wind, hydro, and thermal. In 2015, 93% of its energy came from renewable.
Apple says the investment in renewable energy is paying off and they won’t stop innovating as the amount of renewable energy available to them grows.
Who knows? In the near future you might be charging your apple cell phone with apple power.
Does anyone remember “as sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Lives”? This is what it seems to be as the “Battle in the Buckeye State” has become with FirstEnergy and AEP Ohio and the approval of their respective rendering of the PPA’s. What had captured national attention from investors and regulators watching from the wings has now garnered the attention of the Feds. Specifically, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The approval by our PUCO has now been put on hold by FERC for additional review and scrutiny for various reasons.
What seems to be at the heart of the issue is that both proposals put the consumers into a position that they are not able to mitigate or get out of having to pay (non-bypassable) charges that these PPA’s would have triggered.
We’ve all been there before. While driving along we notice gasoline prices are lower than usual, so we pull in, top it off, and take advantage, despite the fact that we still have half a tank left. Then, the next morning we drive by that same gas station and see prices dropped an additional 10 cents. Or, we skip filling up and see gasoline prices have jumped 30 cents… So what gives?
The same volatility occurs in the natural gas and electric market. When dealing with commodities we are often damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Energy prices are constantly on the move, and much like gasoline prices, a myriad of reasons come into play. Supply and demand is not always what moves the market. Factors such as storage levels, weather, a full moon, a trader having a bad day can swing the pendulum. Obviously I joke with the latter two but the point remains, it’s difficult to understand why these movements happen.
In today’s market I would assume that “energy saving” calls have picked up frequency in recent weeks. Why? Because marketers will develop a pitch based on the market being up or down. If the market goes up, they claim it’s a good time to get out. If the market goes down, they claim it’s a good time to get out. According to them, you should always be signing up. Yes, rates today might be lower than last year, but comparing your price then, to today, is not telling the whole story…
Just like mortgage rates, they change over time. Years ago 8% was the norm, whereas rates today are now below 4%. Did you make the wrong decision, pay too much, or get ripped off at 8%? No, at the time that was the market, and markets shift in time.
Buying in a down market is easy, you buy savings but understanding all that lies below the surface within that price is key. Energy components, operational changes, contract terms, program options, are all things to consider when jumping back in. Simply picking a rate is a short sighted reaction to a complexity that goes much deeper.
To learn more about your options, the market, and the things you can do to adjust costs, contact your energy representative. Your business is important, make sure you are asking the right questions. An in depth review and explanation is what it deserves, not just a “pick your price” approach in a commodity world that’s as volatile as the local gas station.
For those of you who had money on the Final Four tournament, the Masters or the passage of the new ESP for FirstEnergy or the PPA filings in AEP, my guess is we all came up a little short. Not to mention what the impact will be going forward over the next 8 years. Only time will tell.
On March 31st, Ohio regulators approved the “income guarantees” for a number of AEP’s coal fired generation plants and FirstEnergy’s Davis Besse nuclear facility, a coal facility (Sammis) and their share of OVEC (Ohio Valley Electric Cooperative).
The PPA portions for both utilities, according to them, not only stabilizes rates, and provides job security but also guarantees their rate of return on their assets for the next 8 years. We will have a clear picture in 9 years! As a side note, DP&L is preparing their PPA proposal so those in that market area probably will not be left out!
Every rate payer within their respective service territories [AEP Ohio & FirstEnergy Ohio] will be affected, whether supply is taken from a supplier or directly from the utility. The charges (or credits) are unavoidable and non-bypassable on the distribution side of the bill meaning we all get to share equally.
Here are some links to the official PUCO comments:
With all the talk in the industry about wind, solar, and fuel cell storage to help businesses manage their energy costs, another resource businesses have turned to is “Demand Response”.
Demand Response is a voluntary program that compensates customers for reducing their electric consumption, in an event where the reliability of the electric grid is threatened, or when wholesale prices are high.
During these critical times referred to as “Events”, businesses agree to reduce their electric usage in exchange for financial compensation “incentive payments”. By reducing energy consumption during hours of peak demand, you relieve stress on the grid, the environment, and your bottom line. Two ways consumers can reduce electricity is:
• Self-Generation – backup generators • Usage Reduction – turning off equipment, large HP motors, slowing down or stopping production at an industrial operation, dimming or shutting off lights, raising A/C set points, etc.
In other words the customer earns revenue for reducing their electric consumption during peak demand periods.
Currently within the PJM footprint, there are Limited, Extended Summer and Annual program options. The most common is “Limited”. Under this program potential events are limited to the summer months of June thru Sept. The maximum number of events that can be called is 10, with a maximum of 6 hours of duration for an event.
Under “Extended Summer” the months are expanded to May thru October and I don’t think “Annual” needs to be explained. Under this program the number of potential events are unlimited and the maximum duration of an event becomes 10 hours.
Effective June 2018 the above mentioned programs will be eliminated and replaced by Base Capacity and Capacity Performance Products. The table below summarizes the various program and their requirements:
Looking back, there have been very few actual curtailment events here in Ohio. Since deregulation started in Ohio in 2009, there have been 5 events totaling 16 hours within the First Energy markets. They occurred all in 2013 as a result of equipment constraints; issues that have since been resolved. For the rest of Ohio there have only been 2 events, 1 in 2012 and 1 in 2013, each 4 hours in duration.
To enroll into a demand response program you will need to select a PJM Curtailment Service Provider. They will monitor your performance to maximize your annual DR payments for the projected load drop, keeping you informed and notifying you of potential events.
If no actual events are called, PJM requires each participant perform a one hour test to confirm their ability to shed their committed load. This test must be completed by September 30 and will be coordinated by your PJM Curtailment Service Provider.
There is no penalty for non-performance. If a customer fails to shed the committed load during their test or during any called events, the only result is a reduced payment or no payment. The total amount of the reduction assessed in any program year is capped at the total contracted DR payment for that year.
If you have back-up generation or have the ability to modify your operation you need to consider a demand response program. We have worked with a number of companies that initially said nope we can’t shed, but after thinking outside the box are now benefiting from demand response.
If you don’t enroll into a DR program you will never receive an incentive payment. Remember you are always in control of your operation and the load you shed. If you don’t perform to your committed load, there is no out of pocket penalty.
Demand Response values for the June 2016/17 year are around $20,000-25,000 (per megawatt reduction). If you feel you could possibly shed some load, now is a great time to review your business. If you already have an interval meter, the cutoff for enrollment for this coming year is May 15th.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen electric suppliers’ fixed rate offerings devolve into agreements that are less and less fixed. The Public Utility Commission of Ohio recognized the broken “fixed” rate situation, and this past November mandated guidelines for electric contracts being marketed as fixed.
We initially reported this development in our last newsletter, but what about the underlying issues that led us here, and what should customers expect going forward?
The Roots of Pass-Through Charges in Fixed Rate Contracts
Occurrences over the past few years, such as the 2014 Polar Vortex and the 2015 PJM capacity performance reform, have encouraged suppliers to adopt clauses within their agreements to protect them from the financial risks of events outside of their control. These clauses allowed suppliers to pass-through additional costs to fixed rate customers based on certain events, potentially making the rate not so fixed. Regulatory change clauses have become common among the majority of supplier contracts, as it protects and allows them to pass through cost increases based upon unforeseen governmental or regulation changes.
The devolution from supplier protection to price manipulation
In a free market, businesses must often adapt or die, and this has been true of the deregulated electric market. Suppliers who have become less competitive, have had to make business decisions into finding ways to lower their rates to appear in line with their competitors. Until this past November, there was little regulation to these pass through clauses within fixed price agreements. This created opportunities for noncompetitive suppliers to further broaden language within their fixed price agreements. In doing so, these suppliers were able to move risk to the customer and shave costs off of their quotes, making their rates seem more appealing. Material adverse change clauses allow rates to be adjusted or costs to be passed through based on component costs that are not yet realized, or even ones that are likely to change. Examples of such would be changes in initial contracted amounts of usage and/or capacity obligation (PLC’s).
Is the fixed price issue fixed?
The PUC’s new “fixed means fixed” guidelines are now active as of January 1st, 2016. While the commission attempted to make buying electricity less cryptic and deceptive for customers, the only real change we expect to see is the title of supplier offerings, formally known as “fixed”. For the most part these programs are suppliers’ standard offers, and whether they are now named Fixed Introductory, All Inclusive, Fully Bundled, Full Requirements, what have you, nothing has really changed, and the nature of power buying will still be as confusing for customers as before.
What’s important to take away from all of this is the same issues of evaluating; what’s included in a supplier’s rate, what’s missing, what could be passed through, all are expected to continue. A trained monkey can give you a piece of paper and point you to the lowest rate, but now more than ever it’s imperative for customers to understand the lowest rate may not be the lowest cost option.
FirstEnergy’s and AEP Ohio’s Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) are currently pending approval by the PUCO. If approved, it will guarantee the utilities a 10% rate of return (wouldn’t you like to earn a 10% Return on your money) and add unnecessary (in our humble opinion) charges to your electric bills that you can’t control.
Why should we bail out First Energy and AEP for their bad business decisions and insulate them from competition? The proposals force us, the consumer, to pay for their old, outdated and inefficient power plants.
To take a stand I encourage you and anyone with an electric bill to visit the FIGHT THE HIKES WEBSITE and voice your opposition of these PPA’s. Simply click on the “ACT Now” button to have your voice heard by the Governor, your state senator and representative, the commissioners and chairman of the PUCO.
The issue shouldn’t be about what’s best for utility companies and their shareholders, but what’s best for all Ohioans. It’s not about reliability. If you have any questions please contact me, Huck Hayes at 866-646-7322.
In March 2014, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) became aware that electric suppliers have been including pass-through clauses in their supply agreements. Such clauses allow the supplier to pass through to the customer cost changes for certain events. A prime example was FirstEnergy’s RTO charges that were passed-through, even on fixed price contracts.
As a result, there were concerns that permitting pass-through clauses in a fixed rate contract confuses customers. This contract language made it difficult for consumers to compare other fixed rate offers that didn’t contain such clauses.
As we have advised customers forever, lowest price should not be your sole deciding factor. One needs to know what the contract language is telling you.
Remember the BIG print giveth and the SMALL print taketh.
After hearing all the supporting arguments to include or exclude pass-through language, the PUCO has come to the conclusion that all electric supplier contracts, whether residential, commercial or industrial, “fixed” should mean “fixed”. As such, supplier contracts going forward, may not include a pass-through clause in a contract labeled as “FIXED RATE”.
This does not eliminate suppliers from continuing to offer products that contain pass-through provisions, it just means they must alter the contract label to “variable or introductory rates”
The PUCO recognizes that regulatory out clauses are included in supplier contracts as a means to pass-through charges that they have no control over. The PUCO believes these clauses should be available in very limited circumstances and clearly spelled out in plain language.
Moving forward under the new fixed means fixed guidelines, if the supplier wants to revise its pricing, they must inform the customer by proposing a new contract price. If the customer agrees to the revised pricing, the contract remains in place under the current contracted terms.
However, if the customer would “reject” the revised agreement, the customer would be permitted to pursue default service or other supply offerings without being subject to penalties.
These changes are intended for any new contracts and the PUCO noted that this order makes no ruling with respect to existing contracts.
The implementation for the PUCO finding, suppliers shall have until January 1, 2016 to bring all contracts into compliance with the “fixed means fixed” guidelines.
If you have missed all the happenings going on at the PUCO over the last few months, FirstEnergy’s PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) has been negotiated with and approved by the PUCO staff. As of this writing, the agreement is expected to be signed by the commissioners early in 2016 (and take effect starting June 1, 2016). The AEP filing approval is not far behind.
The FirstEnergy PPA was originally proposed as a 15-year arrangement as a means to keep viable some of the legacy generation assets (coal and nuclear) with a guaranteed rate of return. The Retail Rate Stability Rider (RRS) of the PPA returns First Energy Solutions generation facilities (Davis Besse, Sammis and their share of OVEC) to a “cost plus” regulation where they are guaranteed to cover the costs with a “reasonable” rate of return.
These plants are not able to compete with low cost natural gas produced electricity in the market. The PUCO accepted a negotiated plan of 8 years to begin in June 2016 and expire in May 2024. As the wholesale market has changed, the utility system(s) had to come up with “innovative” ways to keep operating their facilities and it looks like everyone in the FirstEnergy (and AEP) footprint will see increased distribution costs passed along to them. This ruling, if approved, will have no effect on your ability to participate or secure your power on the open market.
When all the dust settles and no matter the “spin”, this is a shift from de-regulation to, at least for now, partial re-regulation. According to FirstEnergy’s analysis, this program will “save” consumers $590 Million – the Ohio Consumers Council independent study asserts it will cost us $3.9 Billion, this is quite a spread. Now more than ever, we as consumers in Ohio need to make our collective voices heard.
Write/Call/Email – Since the first word of the acronym for the PUCO is Public, as ratepayers within the great state of Ohio, if we collectively express our displeasure with the pending approval of the PPA, maybe we will be heard. Not all that long ago, in the AEP market after a rate plan went into effect, there was a public outcry. The PUCO reversed their decision and had AEP return to their prior rate structure until a new and more “reasonable” plan was adopted. Can history repeat itself?
Update: New hearings have been set by an administrative judge at the PUCO regarding FirstEnergy’s PPA to begin on January 14th with no timeline announced for conclusion. The AEP PPA was approved by staff at the PUCO on 12/14/2015 but still has to be signed off by the commissioners.
This is an example widget to show how the Right sidebar looks by default. You can add custom widgets from the widgets screen in the admin. If custom widgets is added than this will be replaced by those widgets