Members Build Consensus on Streamlining Stakeholder Process


A year-long effort to streamline key aspects of the stakeholder process is winding to a close, with consensus growing for a proposal to be presented on a first read to the Members Committee Aug. 22.

Since 1997, PJM has swelled from 89 members to more than 1,000. This expansion, coupled with a rapidly changing industry, has translated to an overwhelming number of complex topics to be considered by stakeholders and PJM.

Last July, the advisory Stakeholder Super Forum began discussing ways to:

  • Prioritize the volume of issues flowing through the stakeholder process
  • Create an additional method for vetting issues that are contentious or require immediate attention
  • Improve transparency throughout the decision-making process

At their meeting Wednesday, June 19, forum participants reviewed the results of a preliminary survey regarding a path forward and discussed a poll on proposed packages to be administered in time for the group’s next meeting July 8.

Regarding prioritizing issues and meetings, the majority of survey respondents – 60 percent of 164 organizations represented – favored maintaining the status quo of having two days per month designated as “no meeting” days. However, there is wide diversity of opinion on whether the open days should continue to be contiguous, and when they should fall in relation to the meetings of standing and senior committees. Stakeholders continue to work toward consensus on a single proposal.

In the interest of creating an additional process to resolve contentious issues that have stalled in the standard process, a small group of members, coupled with PJM, has proposed a new Critical Issue Fast Path. The process would be used on “major issues in extraordinary circumstances” and would be expected to be employed infrequently, according to the proposal.

To improve transparency, the group also is considering an option for a “page-turn” review of stakeholder-endorsed business rules. According to the survey, there was not widespread support for expanding PJM’s current rule of restricting the recording of stakeholder meetings solely for PJM’s internal training purposes.