By Rory D. Sweeney

VALLEY FORGE, Pa. — The results are in from a PJM member poll on the stakeholder process. The findings? It’s not perfect, but it’ll have to do.

Stakeholders reviewed the results and considered next steps at a “stakeholder super forum” on Wednesday. The effort to review the process rose out of concerns raised by multiple RTO participants.

Observations of the results showed there was strong agreement that PJM’s main job is to maintain grid reliability; robust, non-discriminatory and competitive markets; and efficient operations. Additionally, many respondents agreed that “all things considered, the PJM stakeholder process is superior to the stakeholder processes of other RTO’s” and that PJM’s staff provide highly satisfactory technical expertise and analysis to support the process.

However, members also agreed that the process takes on more issues than it can process and resolve; that PJM and members can do a better job prioritizing issues; and that standing committees need to better manage their subcommittees and task forces.

“On balance, … we do think that of the bad ideas that are out there, we think that this is a good one,” Gabel Associates’ Mike Borgatti said, referring to the stakeholder process.

Ironically, or perhaps as expected, respondents showed less agreement on what to do when the stakeholder process cannot reach agreement on an issue.

PJM’s Dave Anders facilitated the meeting, along with Borgatti, who chairs the Members Committee. Anders confirmed that the total of 204 respondents was representative of the usual participation in MC votes, which is usually around one-fifth of the roughly 1,000 members. Borgatti said that “all around the same timeframe” earlier this year, he received feedback from members, PJM staff, board members and other stakeholders about concerns with the current process.

That feedback initiated the poll, which relied on the same questions used during the Governance Assessment Special Team (GAST) that PJM implemented in 2009 following FERC Order 719, which required the board to prove it was responsive to stakeholders. Borgatti said the GAST responses provide a baseline for where the process has improved or worsened in the ensuing years.

He stressed the purpose of the meeting was to identify issues members would like to consider addressing and not to formulate solutions.

“This is purely informative. … We’re not solving anything now,” he said. “I personally don’t believe it’s my responsibility to tell you what conversations you should be having” or what the membership should be voting on.

Stakeholders then listed issues they would like to consider addressing. Among them were subjects that have come up recently, such as how to handle proposals introduced at the MC or the Markets and Reliability Committee rather than at lower committees and reducing the threshold for proposals from lower committees to be recommended for consideration at the MRC and MC. A major consideration was prioritizing issues and limiting the number being considered simultaneously.

Stakeholders also wanted to discuss procedures for handling issues when there is no consensus on a solution or when a FERC decision is anticipated, but they did not want to change PJM’s voting mechanisms. In fact, while several stakeholders expressed concerns through the poll about sector-weighted voting, stakeholders didn’t add it to the list of issues to consider. Instead, they will consider whether PJM should take a stronger role in placing members in their correct sector.

Borgatti said the issues will be distilled into a few ideas for consideration and then included in a problem statement and issue charge to be endorsed by the membership later this year.