On April 17, 2019, in Docket No. ER15-994-000, PJM submitted its annual compliance report on unreserved use penalties, late study penalties, and the distribution of such penalties pursuant to Order No. 890 and Order No. 890-A to report PJM's assessment and distribution of operating penalties for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

On April 16, 2019, in Docket No. ER19-1599-000, PJM submitted for filing changes to certain collation “meta-data” values of the PJM Tariff because the PJM eTariff database will soon be unable to accept new tariff records without the new collation values being assigned. PJM requested the change in collation values become effective April 17, 2019 as the change is only a technical, behind the scenes change to the “meta-data” of the PJM Tariff. No substantive changes to any provisions of the PJM Tariff are being made in this filing.

On April 15, 2019, in Docket Nos. EL19-63-000 and EL19-47-000, the Office of the People’s Counsel for the District of Columbia, Delaware Division of the Public Advocate, Citizens Utility Board, Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division, and PJM Industrial Customer Coalition (collectively, the Joint Consumer Advocates) filed a complaint and motion for consolidation asking that the Commission: (1) find that the current market seller offer cap (MSOC) that PJM uses in its Reliability Price Model (RPM) Base Residual Auction (BRA) is unjust and unreasonable; (2) direct PJM and its stakeholders to revise the methodology used for calculating the MSOC to ensure a competitive auction during the next BRA; and (3) grant the motion for consolidation with the complaint brought by the Independent Market Monitor for PJM in Docket No. EL19-47-000.