WECC on Monday released a heavily revised version of its proposal to extensively reorganize its stakeholder committee structure, as it sought to address a flurry of member comments and concerns about the original plan released in October.

The latest straw proposal from WECC’s Stakeholder Engagement Task Force (SETF) fills out a number of details that stakeholders said were left out of the original plan while offering a new vision for how committees would be configured after the shake-up. (See Plan Would Consolidate, Cull Stakeholder Groups.)

It also seeks to address the reservations of stakeholders who felt the effort might move too quickly to provide for thoughtful deliberations. (See WECC Members Seek More Time, Input on SETF Plan.)

In a document summarizing the revisions, the SETF acknowledged stakeholder complaints that it was not clear about what problem it is seeking to solve with the proposal. One commenter wrote that “not being direct about the problem to be solved is a fatal flaw. I recommend adding an explicit problem statement that is specific.”

The updated proposal explains that “access to stakeholder subject matter expertise is critical to WECC’s ability to fulfill its reliability and security responsibilities.”

“The existing stakeholder engagement structure and processes are not well suited to enable WECC to marshal that expertise to identify and analyze emerging reliability and security issues in a timely manner,” the proposal says, adding that a streamlining of the existing committee structure and creation of new structures will better support WECC’s mission.

The newer plan largely scraps a previous proposal to consolidate two of WECC’s three major standing committees — the Operations (OC) and Market Interface (MIC) committees — into a single Operations, Security and Market Interface Committee (OSMIC), while leaving the Reliability Assessment Committee (RAC) intact.

The SETF had found that the OC and MIC mostly functioned as networking and information-sharing venues rather than as groups producing vital work products for WECC. On the other hand, the task force determined the RAC plays a key role in the regional entity’s resource adequacy efforts.

Stakeholders expressed different concerns about WECC’s approach to streamlining the committees. As one commenter said, “The combined OSMIC seems way too broad a scope to allow useful participation.” Others worried that in effectively disbanding the OC and MIC, the task force was too heavily discounting the value to stakeholders of the networking and information-sharing opportunities provided by the committees.

But the latest proposal does not back off from making radical changes to the standing committees. Instead, it identifies two “value streams” flowing from the existing committee structures: work products (value stream 1) and stakeholder interaction (value stream 2).

Retirement, not Consolidation

The SETF proposes to address value stream 1 by retiring all three standing committees — including the RAC — and placing their work product efforts into a more fluid “working committee” structure overseen by a newly created Committee Review Body (CRB), which would replace WECC’s existing Joint Guidance Committee.

The proposal explains that WECC’s standing committee structure “does not readily allow for issues to be addressed across multiple disciplines.” As a result, an issue that crosses disciplines is typically assigned to multiple committees rather than a single multidisciplinary one, with various ad hoc work groups and task forces organized to fill in the gaps.

“Once the various committees complete their work, which is not necessarily coordinated, there is no reconciliation of the work, findings or recommendations. This results in piecemeal work, which may still have value, but lacks cohesiveness and requires stakeholders to reconcile the separate work products on their own,” the proposal notes.

Under the new proposal, the nature of the issue would dictate the composition of the group working on the topic, “rather than the work on the issue being dictated by the composition of the group,” the proposal says. And while the CRB would be responsible for managing and aligning work products, approval of final products would be left to the members of the working committees.

Each working committee would be “co-led” by a stakeholder chair and a subject matter expert drawn from WECC staff.

“This will formalize the role of WECC staff in communicating messaging and directional expectations. It will also provide continuity when the chair changes,” the proposal says.

Working committees will consist of voting members and general members. The latter would be able to “come and go,” offer input or just observe, but they would not be allowed to vote on a work product.

The proposal envisions the CRB as a small committee consisting of members drawn from stakeholders, WECC management and the RE’s Board of Directors, with a board member functioning as chair. The CRB would make decisions related to the creation and retirement of working committees and perform annual reviews to ensure work is proceeding as planned.

And while the CRB will not be responsible for approving work products, it will evaluate whether committees are meeting specific criteria related to WECC’s “strategic direction” and long-term priorities, and whether it is staffed with appropriate subject matter experts.

Nurturing Cohesiveness

The SETF plan seeks to address value stream 2 — stakeholder interaction — through the establishment of a Reliability and Risk Security Committee (RRSC), which would “serve as the permanent home for stakeholder discussion, networking and information sharing activities.”

“This value stream is equally important to stakeholders and WECC as it helps incubate ideas, stimulates thinking and nurtures the cohesiveness of our stakeholder community. The SETF is committed to preserving this value stream and enhancing the benefit it brings to WECC and its stakeholder community,” the proposal states.

Run by a combination of stakeholders and WECC staff, the RRSC would be responsible for conducting forums and recommending other opportunities for stakeholder interaction while also helping to identify new issues “ripe for work” by a working committee. It will also provide a forum for sharing work provided by the working committees.

The RRSC would be open to all interested parties, and its leadership would be drawn from a wide swathe of stakeholder groups, including policymakers and regulators; public interest groups and nongovernmental organizations; consultants and National Laboratory staff; WECC staff; and industry experts in operations, planning, markets and security. Leaders would be nominated and elected through a formal process still to be determined.

More Time, Space for Comments

In addition to the substantive revisions, the SETF also conceded to stakeholder concerns that the project’s timelines were too aggressive by allowing for multiple iterations of the proposal and extending discussions into 2021. It also opened a second six-week comment window until Jan. 15, 2021, and addressed logistical issues related to the commenting process, including one related to word limits.