The Bonneville Power Administration’s first day-ahead markets workshop since issuing the draft policy stating its intention to join SPP’s Markets+ left little opportunity for critics to probe agency officials about the decision.

That’s because the meeting featured a ground rule that largely checked inquiries from skeptics of the agency’s choice: Discussion had to be limited to “clarifying questions” about only what’s spelled out in the policy document.

“I want to be as clear as I can that these questions are really about the content that is in the draft policy, and it’s about clarifying that content,” Ashley Donahoo, BPA day-ahead markets lead, said at the start of the March 19 workshop, likely the last such meeting before the agency issues its final “record of decision” (ROD) in May. (See BPA Selects SPP Markets+ in Draft Policy.)

That instruction deviated from previous day-ahead workshops, where staff fielded a range of questions and took oral comments from participants on the fly. Instead, participants were instructed to reserve most questions for “formal” comments to be submitted to BPA through April 7.

“If I do say, ‘We can’t answer that question, you need to submit a formal comment,’ I’m not trying to be rude. This just is not the forum for that,” Donahoo said.

BPA offered its own clarification about the purpose of the meeting: “The workshop was intended to be an opportunity for stakeholders to ask clarifying questions on BPA’s day-ahead market draft policy as they prepare to meet our April 7 comment deadline.”

“This is a little bit challenging, this framework for the conversation,” said Stefanie Johnson, a strategic adviser with Seattle City Light, a BPA “preference” customer that has criticized the agency’s preference for Markets+. (See Markets+ Leaning ‘Alarming,’ Seattle City Light Tells BPA.)

Fred Heutte, senior policy associate at the Northwest Energy Coalition (NWEC), said the restriction meant a meeting scheduled for six hours lasted little more than two hours.

“Because it was limited only to ‘questions of clarification,’ the BPA day-ahead markets workshop was a missed opportunity for discussion of the broader themes of BPA’s draft market policy,” Heutte told RTO Insider.

Heutte’s frustration should come as little surprise to anyone familiar with the position of his organization, which has long advocated for the creation of a single Western electricity market that pointedly includes CAISO and California. NWEC has strongly and repeatedly urged BPA to join CAISO’s Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) or at least postpone a decision until developments play out around the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative’s efforts to bring more independent governance to EDAM and the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM). (See Pathways ‘Step 2’ Bill Sets Conditions for EDAM Governance.)

“BPA’s own study shows it would risk a net loss of $100 million a year or more by joining the smaller of the two market areas instead of staying in the WEIM, which has proven its value to all participating areas,” he said, referring to the market benefits study consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics conducted last year on behalf of the agency. (See BPA Sticks to Markets+ Leaning Despite Study Showing EDAM Benefits.)

Heutte was the most persistent questioner during the workshop. His first question dealt with a statement in the draft policy that acknowledged BPA still lacks enough information to assess what impact joining Markets+ will have on emissions attributed to federal power purchases from the agency.

“When will that information be available and incorporated into your analysis?” he asked.

BPA climate change specialist Alisa Kasewater said the agency would be unable to provide a “quantifiable number” on emissions impact until it gets closer to operating in the market because of continued uncertainties. Questions remain around the interaction of state-specific greenhouse gas (GHG) rules with the market’s system for tracking and attribution of emissions, BPA’s own asset-controlling supplier emissions factor and the makeup of resources participating in the new market.

Kasewater addressed Heutte’s next question about what elements BPA prefers about the Markets+ GHG design. But Donahoo headed off his follow-up asking if BPA identified any preferable elements in EDAM’s handling of GHGs.

“I just want to be careful, because we are asking for clarifying questions. In the draft policy, was there something that you wanted clarified that you saw in there about what we said specifically?” Donahoo asked.

‘Fullness of Our Response’

Heutte elicited similar responses when he pressed BPA staff on other issues, including:

• • How BPA is differentiating between the vendor relationship Markets+ will have with SPP and that between EDAM and the Pathways Initiative’s proposed “regional organization.”
  • Given that SPP’s Board of Directors will retain “ultimate authority” over the RTO’s markets, “how much relative weight” in SPP management decisions will “Western interests” have compared with the broader SPP membership.
  • Why BPA isn’t waiting to see how this session of the California Legislature progresses on implementing the Pathways Initiative’s governance bill for CAISO.

“I understand your comments, and I do think you need to submit them formally,” Donahoo said. “I’m not hearing a clarification. I’m hearing more of a questioning of why we went our way.”

“I’m not trying to be argumentative; I’m trying to raise issues that we would like to clarify,” Heutte responded.

Speaking on behalf of the Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition (NIPPC), Henry Tilghman posed a question that referenced recent job cuts and resignations at BPA stemming from actions by the Trump administration. (See BPA to Restore 89 ‘Probationary’ Staff, Agency Confirms.)

“I follow the news. I’ve talked to people at Bonneville. It sounds like you’re resource constrained. Can Bonneville deliver on the timeline to implement a day-ahead market in 2028?” Tilghman asked.

“I don’t believe we’ve mentioned 2028 in the draft policy, so I don’t see that as a clarifying question, but I recommend that you submit your comment,” Donahoo said. “And correct me if I’m wrong: DOE has restricted us from talking about staffing, so we can’t add anything to that.”

“I’m hearing a lot of mentions of, ‘Submit comments. We’ll address them,’” said Kalia Savage, principal transmission and markets policy analyst at Portland General Electric (PGE), which last year committed to joining EDAM.

“Since PGE has submitted comments throughout the process, we haven’t had all of our comments addressed. And then with the policy decision going towards Markets+, I would love to hear how comments are actually going to be addressed and considered given the policy decision direction,” she said.

Donahoo said BPA has posted on its website answers to any questions asked throughout the day-ahead market workshops, while comments on the draft policy will be addressed in the ROD.

“I’m quite sure in the fullness of our response, we will make a complete presentation of our views,” Heutte said.

‘Really Meaningful’

Still, BPA officials did address several stakeholder questions during the workshop, including some dealing with matters not explicitly spelled out in the draft policy.

In response to Tilghman’s question about whether BPA’s market analysis would be affected by delays in implementing the first binding season of the Western Resource Adequacy Program (WRAP), which Markets+ members are obligated to join, BPA’s Matt Hayes said the agency thinks WRAP participants, the Western Power Pool and SPP are committed to making the program work.

Besides, Hayes noted, beginning the WRAP’s binding period in winter 2027/28 technically doesn’t constitute a “delay” because the timeline still falls within the requirements of the program’s FERC-approved tariff.

Savage asked whether BPA would update its ROD after its May release based on developments coming out of the California legislature and CAISO’s GHG Working Group and upcoming EDAM congestion revenue rights allocation initiative.

“At this time, the final policy would be based on the facts that exist at the time of publication,” BPA attorney Erika Doot said. “If there were significant changes, we would consider whether we need to issue a subsequent document.”

As the meeting wound down, Chris Roden, director of energy services at Clatskanie (Ore.) People’s Utility District, sounded a supportive note for BPA.

“Reserving my opinion on where Bonneville is landing, I feel heard representing load — and also some independent generation — in the region,” Roden said. “I appreciate the process — the diligence — Bonneville has gone through, both from a legal perspective and a technical perspective. And this final ability to comment is really meaningful.”

“I recommend that you submit that formally. Thank you,” Donahoo joked.