A controversial rule requiring consultants to be upfront about who they represent could soon be codified in MISO’s Stakeholder Governance Guide.

Steering Committee members approved draft language during their meeting Thursday for the Advisory Committee’s consideration.

The ruleset would require stakeholders to state their full name and the company they represent before speaking during stakeholder meetings. Consultants would either give the “identity of their client on whose behalf they are speaking” or — if the consultant is working under a nondisclosure agreement — provide the sector “with which the specific client is or would be affiliated.” The rules also stipulate that consultants should announce when they’re speaking on behalf of multiple clients or a particular client.

“The idea is to clarify, not to stifle dialogue,” said Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Chair Cynthia Crane, with ITC Holdings.

She pointed out that PJM stakeholders have such a requirement.

“There’s clearly precedent for consultants to identify their clients in some fashion,” Crane said. “Transparency is a hallmark of the MISO stakeholder process.”

The draft language also encourages stakeholders to provide their first and last names when logging into virtual webinars.

The rule has some roots in consultant David Harlan’s refusal to divulge Entergy as his client when offering opinions during MISO planning meetings in 2019 and 2020. (See Entergy Consultant Under Fire for Covert Role in MISO.) Steering Committee leadership, however, only referenced concern regarding consultants not identifying clients or the sector they speak for during PAC meetings.

Some MISO members insisted that requiring consultants to be forthcoming about their clients could be unduly burdensome, noting that some consultants may have a list of clients.

“We’re all adults here, and we’re expected to act professionally,” said Market Subcommittee Chair Megan Wisersky, of Madison Gas and Electric. “I find this requirement to be unnecessary.”

She said the language singles out consultants and is silent on attorneys, nongovernmental organizations and trade group representatives. “It’s forcing consultants to wear a scarlet letter.”

Resource Adequacy Subcommittee Chair Chris Plante, of WEC Energy Group, said, “It seems benign, but I can see where this could create a lot of obstacles for a chair to run a smooth meeting.”

Reliability Subcommittee Chair Ray McCausland, with Ameren, said that in his years in the MISO stakeholder process, he’s seen just one individual refuse to name their client. But he said having the language on hand couldn’t hurt if the RTO again encounters a similar issue. “Let’s just get this simple language done; let’s put it to bed; and let’s keep moving.”

“This is very straightforward language,” Manitoba Hydro’s Audrey Penner said. “I don’t see anything here that could disenfranchise anyone.”

“I like the free-flowing discussion, the hard questions. It bothers me to the core that we’re going down an authoritarian route on the stakeholder process where we require this, require that, before people are allowed to speak,” Wisersky said, noting she didn’t know “what the fear is” if consultants don’t identify themselves.

The Advisory Committee will decide in the coming months whether to approve the language its members debated during a Jan. 20 teleconference.

“Stakeholders get trained. They understand it, but as meetings drag on, some might get lax and forget to announce,” said DC Energy’s Bruce Bleiweis, representing the Power Marketers and Brokers sector. “Usually all they need is a gentle reminder. Adherence is near 100%.”

Gabel Associates’ Travis Stewart, a delegate for the Independent Power Producers sector, said it’s “entirely reasonable” for a consultant to divulge a client when they make a request of MISO staff during a meeting.

The IPP sector had suggested that individuals who attempt to disguise clients or mislead stakeholders or MISO leadership be silenced in committee meetings. They would still have the option to submit written opinions after-the-fact, it said.

Consumers Energy’s Kevin Van Oirschot said the issue was “exceedingly rare” and didn’t need to be codified.

But Stewart said stakeholder committee chairs “could use some assistance … and authority.”

“Transparency and professionalism are the cornerstone of the MISO stakeholder process,” he said. “Even though it’s one or only a few instances, in my view this is something that could not and should not happen.”