MISO’s Advisory Committee last week settled on five priorities for 2016 after adding an obligation to “improve coordination across market and non-market seams” under the seams optimization priority.

In approving the priorities, the committee also called for:

• Improving operational coordination when dealing with federal regulations such as the Clean Power Plan;
• A focus on price formation under the grid technology advancement priority; and
• Refinement of the competitive transmission development process under the infrastructure development enablement priority.

The changes were made in response to recommendations from MISO sectors. (See “AC to Finalize Priority-Setting for May Vote,” MISO Advisory Committee Briefs.)

Advisory Committee Chair Audrey Penner noted that the priorities would be revisited during the committee’s October strategic session. “I want to remind folks that … we will review this again,” she said. “It’s meant to be a reiterative, back-and-forth document.”

With priorities set for this year, work on 2017 begins immediately. Penner said the committee should focus on deciding if this year’s priorities have a shelf life that can continue into 2017 or if they should be reworked.

Committee Retires Stakeholder Governance Working Group

The committee retired the Stakeholder Governance Working Group after the group concluded modifications on the governance guide.

Vice Chair Tia Elliott said the Steering Committee will absorb the group’s responsibilities, and task teams could be formed to deal with more specific issues involving the governance guide. Outstanding governance issues could also be addressed at the annual stakeholder workshop.

Elliot said an “expertise safety net” already exists in the Steering Committee with MISO liaison Eric Stephens, who is able to assist with the governance guide and data requests from the recently retired Data Transparency Working Group.

Gary Mathis, representing the Transmission-Dependent Utilities sector, said more work is needed on stakeholder redesign implementation and that task teams are not the ideal venue.

“The Stakeholder Governance Working Group doesn’t meet very often, it’s efficient, has a chair and vice chair and, unlike a task team, follows the governance guide,” Mathis said.

He said the decision to retire the working group should rest with its parent entity, the Steering Committee.

Dynegy’s Mark Volpe said he has viewed the working group as a “transitional body” since February, when it first dodged retirement through an Advisory Committee motion. (See “Stakeholder Governance Working Group Sidesteps Retirement,” MISO Advisory Committee Briefs.) Elliott said the committee retained the right to retire the group.

— Amanda Durish Cook