Field notes The Energy Transition for the Rest of Us

Catalyst N° 073 of 125 31 Jul 2025

PJM and the capacity crunch

with Steve Piper, research director for North American power and renewables, S&P Global

In this note
  1. 01The question
  2. 02The answer
  3. 03The argument
  4. 04What you need to know first
  5. 05Details worth keeping
  6. 06Claims worth citing
  7. 07Where it’s contested

The question

PJM’s capacity auction cleared at a record again. What does that say about whether enough generation gets built, and about what consumers will pay?

The answer

It is a red flag, but Piper is careful about which kind: an economic event rather than a blackout risk. The price rose because demand grew quickly while PJM cut how much firm capacity each resource is credited with and raised its reserve margin target, so the system needs more as each megawatt counts for less. The deeper problem is timing: the auction now buys for next year while new combined-cycle gas is a 2030 to 2032 proposition, so the signal arrives too late for the resources it is trying to call forth.

03The argument

The capacity market exists because of a bet made when electricity markets were restructured: that discovered prices would pull private investors into building generation. That produced two signals. Energy prices clear every five minutes and pay for electricity actually delivered. Capacity prices, quoted in dollars per megawatt-day, were meant to be the durable, longer-horizon signal that new plants are needed. PJM historically ran that auction four years ahead precisely so a developer had time to respond: price turbines, line up financing, build. Stakeholder challenges and rule revisions forced PJM to pause auctions for several years, and it fell so far behind that it now procures only for the next reliability year. That sounds procedural and is not. The entire theory of the design was lead time, and the lead time is gone.

The price move comes from a confluence rather than a single cause. For years capacity cleared low, falling as far as about $30 per megawatt-day against roughly $100 in the early 2010s, which PJM and other stakeholders came to worry was too weak to sustain investment and was encouraging early retirements. Demand then grew quickly, with data centers the lead story but electrification and electric vehicles named alongside them, and development spilling out of Northern Virginia into western Pennsylvania and North Carolina as the original hub congested. On top of that PJM revised how it accredits resources, so a nameplate megawatt now earns less reliability credit. Mechanically that is what lifts the price: with each bid counting for less, more bids stack up the supply curve before it crosses the demand curve, and the crossing point sits higher. Last year’s auction cleared near $270 per megawatt-day and hit its cap; this one cleared at a new cap of about $329 negotiated in a settlement with Pennsylvania, roughly 20% higher in round numbers. Both auctions therefore tell you less than they might, because each time the market wanted to clear higher than it was permitted to.

Piper is deliberate about what this does and does not signal. Resource adequacy gets reported as blackout risk; he pushes that framing away and calls this an economic event, though a significant one. Customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland are receiving notices that bills rise $20 to $30 a month this year from last year’s auction alone, with this year’s higher price flowing through after that. What a record price cannot do is summon supply on the schedule the auction now runs on. It is a strong signal to build gas, and the turbine manufacturers are ramping factories, but you cannot deploy many machines next year or the year after and a combined-cycle plant is a 2030 to 2032 conversation. Solar, wind and storage can be built inside a year or two, exactly the timeframe needed, but they are credited with far less reliability value, so they answer the capacity question much less than their megawatts suggest.

That points at demand response, which is fast to deploy, qualifies in PJM and is accredited relatively well at roughly 60% of nameplate against 8% to 10% for solar. It should have been the resource that responded. It brought about a gigawatt to the 2024 auction and, despite a far stronger price, slightly less this time, which surprised both speakers. Piper’s explanation is not price but risk: accreditation rules are uncertain and evolving on the fly, with open questions about whether data center load flexibility counts as demand aggregation and whether distributed storage competes with demand response or can be folded into it. He expects a period of adaptation before growth. The pattern generalizes beyond PJM. Every major grid operator has done two things at once, lowering the credited reliability contribution of wind, solar and storage while raising target reserve margins, with conventional gas also scrutinized after winter storms Uri in Texas and Elliott in PJM. Wanting more while counting less can only push prices one way, and they pass straight through to retail rates because the utilities serving customers have to pay the bills.

04What you need to know first

Capacity market
A separate payment for being available when needed, on top of the energy market that pays for electricity actually produced. Prices are quoted in dollars per megawatt-day. Texas is the notable exception, trying instead to fold the reliability payment into each hour’s energy price.
Capacity accreditation
How much of a resource’s nameplate rating counts toward reliability. PJM’s rules of thumb in the episode: 100 megawatts of gas counts as about 70, solar as 8 to 10, demand response as about 60. De-rating these numbers raises the clearing price without anything physical changing.
Reserve margin
The cushion of capacity a system targets above expected peak demand. Raising the target increases how much must be procured.
Forward auction
Buying capacity for a delivery year well ahead, which is what gives developers time to build. PJM’s has compressed from four years to roughly one.

05Details worth keeping

  • PJM has the largest footprint of any US grid operator and includes Northern Virginia, which Piper calls the data center center of the world.
  • As Virginia congests, developers are radiating outward into western Pennsylvania and North Carolina, staying near the trunk but away from the worst congestion.
  • Both existing and new resources bid into the same auction, so a coal or older gas plant deciding whether to stay open competes in the same stack as a greenfield project, and the results mix them together.
  • The auction stack ranks all bids, on the order of 150 gigawatts in total, against a variable resource requirement curve, PJM’s demand curve, with the clearing price set where the two cross.
  • The scrutiny is not limited to renewables. After Uri, Texas re-examined gas generation; after Elliott, PJM did the same and made many of its revisions.
  • ERCOT has made many changes too, which Piper considers less impactful because of its commitment to an hour-ahead structure.

06Claims worth citing

All figures as stated on 2025-07-31, about a week after the auction results, and attributed to the speaker rather than independently verified. Auction prices and bill impacts change each year.

  • Capacity cleared around $100 per megawatt-day in the early 2010s and fell as low as about $30, which Piper calls barely enough to deliver returns to merchant generation. Piper
  • Last year’s clearing price was closer to $270 per megawatt-day, which Piper calls eight times the level of recent auctions. Against the $30 low that ratio is nearer nine, so treat the multiple as loose. Piper
  • The new price cap is about $329 per megawatt-day, set in a settlement between PJM and Pennsylvania; this auction hit that cap and set a record, and would have gone higher without it. Piper
  • This auction cleared roughly 20% above last year’s in round numbers. Piper
  • The 2024 auction also hit its cap, offered as a recollection. Kann
  • Customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland are getting notices of bill increases of $20 to $30 a month starting this year from last year’s auction. Piper
  • Accreditation approximations, given verbally: 100 megawatts of gas counted as about 70 megawatts of reserve contribution, solar at 8 to 10, demand response at 60 to 70% and described as about 60. Piper
  • Demand response brought about a gigawatt to the 2024 auction and slightly less in this one, despite the stronger price. Piper
  • New combined-cycle gas plants are being discussed for 2030 to 2032, and few turbines can be deployed next year or two years out. Piper

07Where it’s contested

  • Piper rejects the blackout framing. He notes resource adequacy gets portrayed in the media as blackout risk and insists this is an economic event, though a significant one. That qualifier is the first thing likely to be lost in a retelling.
  • Causation is shared, not collapsed onto data centers. Piper names data centers as the lead story, then explicitly adds other PJM load growth, electrification and electric vehicles, and attributes much of the price move to PJM’s own rule changes and to a preceding period of prices judged too low. Kann’s opening list is broader still, including turbine lead times, interconnection queues, expiring tax credits and canceled transmission loan guarantees, and he says the combined effect is nuanced and partly local.
  • Piper doubts the storage numbers. Grid operators have taken their best guess at battery storage accreditation and he is less confident they have got it right, given changing technology and varying durations. He calls these reliability assessments moving targets, which itself adds developer risk.
  • He hedges on whether the conservatism is correct. Describing PJM’s very conservative solar accreditation, he says it is maybe appropriate given resource adequacy needs rather than endorsing it.
  • The demand response shortfall is diagnosed, not explained. Kann is surprised by how little turned up and asks whether accreditation is insufficient. Piper answers with accreditation risk and rule uncertainty, and expects adaptation before growth. That is a judgment about the cause, not evidence.
  • Whether higher prices actually produce capacity in time is left open. Both agree the signal now comes too quickly for the dispatchable resources that count most, and neither claims to know what closes the gap.

Cite as: “PJM and the capacity crunch,” The Energy Transition for the Rest of Us, note on Catalyst with Shayle Kann, July 31, 2025. CC BY 4.0. View the Markdown