Comments on Pathways

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

APS appreciates the opportunity to influence further progress on the Step 1 Recommendation presented by the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative. APS is directionally supportive of the Step 1 Recommendation as one of many steps needed if independent governance will be established.

APS made clear in the CAISO’s market design process preceding the formation of the EDAM Tariff that it requires an independent governance structure for participation. The existing governance structure employed by the CAISO is not independent and instead utilizes Joint Authority between the CAISO Board and WEIM Governing Body.

Independent governance is critical in market design to prevent unfair influence by any one market or state, promote transparency and accountability, facilitate a representative stakeholder process to drive market evolution, and ultimately promote long-term market stability. If enacted, Step 1 does not include a scope capable of transforming the existing CAISO market governance structure such that it may function independently. Therefore, the support APS expresses for the Step 1 Recommendation is limited to the changes it will make as progress toward more independent governance.

Within these comments, APS offers the following suggestions to clarify or edit the Step1 Recommendation within its prescribed scope:

• Offer for assessment the modified language for the WEIM and EDAM Charters, CAISO Bylaws, and Tariff that will adopt the Step 1 Recommendation;
• Ensure that communication across the joint bodies is preserved under the “Primary Authority” model;
• Define strict requirements for circumstances to qualify as “exigent” to the “Dual Filing” process and closely monitor the exception for effectiveness; and,
• Remove the Trigger for Step 1 Implementation.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

APS recognizes the transition of the WEIM GB to Primary Authority as an iterative first step in a larger framework geared toward making the governance structure of CAISO’s regional market programs more independent and representative of all market participants. APS is supportive of the directionality of this movement. However, Step 1 of the Recommendation does not address APS’s concerns regarding the CAISO’s unbalanced influence over market operations and decisions, and it does not ensure market participants are treated equally within the market. Actualization of Step 1 maintains the CAISO’s multiple roles as a market operator, a participating BA, and a governing authority. APS recognizes that addressing true market independence is outside the scope of the Recommendation’s Step 1.

Within the scope for Step 1, APS supports Bonneville Power Administration’s request to define and include a structure that ensures communication across the WEIM GB and the CAISO Board under the new Primary Authority model.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

APS does not oppose the “Dual Filing” modification to the existing dispute resolution process. However, the inclusion of a “Dual Filing” procedure is illustrative of the still existing unbalanced influence the CAISO maintains under the Recommendation’s Step 1 proposal. APS requests the CAISO clarifies the process for triggering and settling a “Dual Filing” as well as the aftermath of a “Jump Ball” scenario settled at FERC. The Recommendation does not include modified language for governing documents. The “Dual Filing” provision is complex and will require further assessment once language is available.

Regarding the included exception for “exigent” or “time critical” circumstances, APS requests settling on a clear definition of circumstances that would fall under this category to limit the reach of the exception appropriately. Requirements for this provision should be stringent to ensure the mechanism is not invoked unnecessarily since it nullifies the “Dual Filing” change to the dispute resolution process. APS also requests careful monitoring of the use of this process to determine its intended effectiveness of “preserving reliability”.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

APS supports the intent to ensure the WEIM GB, with its expanded authority, safeguards the interest of all consumers represented by participating entities and states in the market. APS cautions that the Recommendation’s suggested changes to the WEIM GB charter to this end are premature. Safeguards need to be evaluated and updated across all affected market governing documents. If updates are not made concurrently, a plan to revise all affected documents should be made clear.

Further, APS supports the Recommendation’s efforts to safeguard the public interest through state regulators’ roles in the BOSR and stakeholders’ input in the RIF. Missing from this discussion is the pivotal role of investor owned and public utilities in safeguarding the public interest through their responsibility to service a public good. Changes made to stakeholder engagement to reflect an independent governance structure need to accommodate the responsibilities held by all market stakeholders.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

APS recommends the removal of the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation to allow for it to develop and be applied without delay and to avoid subsequent delays in steps to follow. The primary intent of ongoing governance development should be progressive toward independence. Extraneous to independence, the Trigger is included to encourage geographic expansion. For APS, presence of an independent governance structure is a condition for participation in a Day-Ahead market and removal of the Trigger reflects this prioritization.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

While Step 1 may produce positive momentum, alone, it cannot achieve a model of governance that ensures independent decisions, a fair and transparent stakeholder process, or equality between market participants. APS continues to support the objectives of the Pathways Initiative as it continues to establish subsequent steps and remains hopeful the process will allow greater access in navigating potential future market seams.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Neutral

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

As a WEIM participant, Bonneville appreciates the steps forward with the Step One proposal to extend 205 filing rights to the WEIM Governing Body.  At the same time, Bonneville believes that Step One, by itself, does not achieve the level of independence from any one state’s authority that is necessary for a regional market.  That level of independence will require California legislation.

Bonneville does not view Primary Authority as more independent than Joint Authority.  However, Bonneville is not opposed to the transition to Primary Authority as long as the CAISO Board of Governors and WEIM Governing Body continue to meet jointly.  Bonneville is concerned that the transition to Primary Authority could lead to the CAISO Board of Governors being disconnected from WEIM and EDAM issues and could increase conflict between the Board of Governors and the WEIM Governing Body. If the CAISO Board of Governors chooses to exercise its oversight role, it must be well-versed in the background of the issues. Bonneville encourages CAISO to consider elements that can be added to the proposal to support continued collaboration between the CAISO Board of Governors and the WEIM Governing Body.

While Bonneville recognizes efforts by the California ISO to increase the role of regional voices in setting the agenda for market policy initiatives, we believe that Step One review should also confirm that policy prioritization and development should be through the use of work groups of interested participants and stakeholders in publicly noticed and accessible meetings.  Bonneville points to the example of the publicly transparent and collaborative model among participants that was used in the development of the Markets Plus design. 

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

Bonneville believes that the desired level of independence for the WEIM Governing Body is Sole Authority.  From that perspective, Step One  does not achieve sufficient independence from California authority.  Bonneville also reiterates comments it provided to the Pathways Launch Committee that there is reason to maintain Joint Authority until such time as Sole Authority can be established. 

Bonneville agreed with the perspective of the EIM Governance Review Committee that there are significant benefits to Joint Authority.  With Joint Authority, the Board of Governors and Governing Body have joint decision meetings and hear the same input from stakeholders.  This results in a cooperative decision-making process.  Under the Step 1 proposal it appears that the primary interaction between the governing entities would be through the dispute resolution process, rather than collaborative engagement before an issue gets to the point of a dispute. Bonneville recommends that CAISO develop an approach to ensure continued collaboration between the Board of Governors and the WEIM Governing Body to keep the Board of Governors apprised of relevant issues and topics in the WEIM and EDAM. For instance, Bonneville encourages the continuation of joint meetings of the Governing Body and Board of Governors.

Although the proposal references use of the current dispute resolution process, that process relies on joint meetings of the WEIM Governing Body and CAISO Board of Governors. With a shift to Primary Authority, those joint meetings could no longer be required. Bonneville recommends that the Step 1 final proposal clearly define the proposed dispute resolution process and any required changes from the status quo process.

Bonneville believes that the scope of tariff responsibilities assigned to Primary Authority needs to be reviewed.  The delineation recommended “at a minimum” by the WEIM Governance was based on a determination that tariff provisions apply to balancing authorities that are participants in the WEIM or to any tariff rule for the day-ahead or real-time markets that directly establishes or changes the formation of any locational marginal price(s) for a product that is common to the overall WEIM or EDAM market.  This delineation results in reserving to the Board of Governors Sole Authority matters that are applicable only to the CAISO balancing authority area or to the CAISO-controlled grid.  However, some tariff provisions identified as applying only to the CAISO balancing authority have consequences for market participants outside of the CAISO BA. The EDAM will likely exacerbate these consequences.  Bonneville is concerned that the delineation of tariff scope under the “applies to” test should be reviewed and that this initiative should address whether the Governing Body should have authority over measures that “impact” other market participants.  At a minimum, it is important to clarify the delineation between primary authority and authority reserved to the Board of Governors as part of this step 1 process.  Bonneville is particularly concerned that, without examination, this delineation could extend into California state legislation that reserves authorities for the Board of Governors and cement those reservations into state law. 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The proposed approach in Step 1 introduces the co-equal filing at FERC as an added level of independence. Bonneville supports this proposal in principle.  The final proposal should discuss the role of CAISO staff in preparing dual filings, and how the process would ensure that both filings would be presented to FERC on equal footing.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

Bonneville agrees with the evaluation criterion of “respect for state authority to set procurement, environmental, reliability and other public interest policies.”  However, Bonneville notes that the proposed amendments to the WEIM Governing Body Charter highlight the conflict between the Governing Body and Board of Governors.  The two bodies will have different evaluation criteria, with the Board of Governors specifically focused on California interests.  The proposed safeguards would be uncertain until the Board of Governors’ Charter is also amended.

The CAISO should specifically define what authorities are retained by the State of California through the Board of Governors over GHG accounting by CARB; resource adequacy procurement by CPUC, and other policies that may be defined as being under exclusive authority. Bonneville urges CAISO to work directly with the California regulatory agencies to confirm the scope of authorities held by the state of California over WEIM and EDAM market design.  

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Regardless of the timing for Step 1, some improvements in market governance do not need to wait for a particular level of commitments to the EDAM.  Specifically, Bonneville urges the Board of Governors and Governing Body to continue improvements in stakeholder engagement and initiative prioritization.  One challenge is the balance of prioritization of CAISO staff time to support the priorities for stakeholder initiatives advanced by WEIM participants from outside of California with the priorities identified by California’s participating transmission owners. 

The Regional Issues Forum continues to develop its function as the venue for regional stakeholders to develop and support priorities for policy initiatives.  This development should continue and confirm that the WEIM Governing Body and Board of Governors effectively adopt priorities and accountable timelines for policy initiatives. 

Improved stakeholder engagement and representation models may be a key consideration in decisions regarding whether to join a market. Advancing this work sooner will provide greater assurance to stakeholders of their roles in the future market.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Bonneville's full comments to the Pathways Launch Committee on its April 10th draft Step One and Step Two proposals are attached. 

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

See attached comments.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

See attached comments.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

See attached comments.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

See attached comments.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

See attached comments.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

See attached comments.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Please see attached letter

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

Please see attached letter

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

Please see attached letter

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

Please see attached letter

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Please see attached letter

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Please see attached letter

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

California Community Choice Association[1] (CalCCA) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative (Pathways Initiative). CalCCA strongly supports the Pathways Initiative's direction and the stepwise solution advanced by the Launch Committee in the Step 1 Recommendation. Increased regional coordination that could be unlocked via the Step 1 Recommendation can enhance grid reliability and affordability while still respecting state and local climate policies.

The Step 1 Recommendation proposes meaningful governance reforms that incrementally move toward a regional solution that meets the needs of Western stakeholders. It aims to timely and substantively modify the existing California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) and Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) governance structure to one with greater independence from the CAISO Board of Governors (BOG). The Step 1 Recommendation has the potential to result in an expanded EDAM footprint, which would expand EDAM benefits, including reliability, affordability, and greenhouse gas-reduction benefits, for California and other participating states' consumers.

As the CAISO and stakeholders pursue the implementation of the Step 1 Recommendation, CalCCA encourages consideration of key issues outlined in the Step 1 Recommendation and within these comments. In summary:

• The CAISO should elevate the WEIM Governing Body’s (GB) decision-making authority from Joint Authority to Primary Authority upon hitting the Step 1 implementation trigger.
• The CAISO should retain the ability for the WEIM GB and CAISO BOG to have informal discussions or briefings on primary authority items in advance of a decision.
• The CAISO should adopt the dual filing concept but further clarify the triggering of dual filings, the CAISO’s role as the filing entity, and the WEIM Governing Body’s post-filing role and funding of counsel.
• Incorporating mechanisms to protect customer interests into the WEIM Charter is critical at this time when Western electricity customers face an affordability crisis.
• The CAISO should confirm whether any further refinements are needed either to the Step 1 Recommendation or to the CAISO’s existing processes to ensure its roles as a Balancing Area Authority and a Transmission Operator (TO) are not impaired by the governance change.

[1]            California Community Choice Association represents the interests of 24 community choice electricity providers in California: Apple Valley Choice Energy, Ava Community Energy, Central Coast Community Energy, Clean Energy Alliance, Clean Power Alliance of Southern California, CleanPowerSF, Desert Community Energy, Energy For Palmdale’s Independent Choice, Lancaster Energy, Marin Clean Energy, Orange County Power Authority, Peninsula Clean Energy, Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy, Pioneer Community Energy, Pomona Choice Energy, Rancho Mirage Energy Authority, Redwood Coast Energy Authority, San Diego Community Power, San Jacinto Power, San José Clean Energy, Santa Barbara Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, and Valley Clean Energy.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

CalCCA supports elevating the WEIM GB’s decision-making authority from Joint Authority to Primary Authority to make timely and substantive governance reforms that are consistent with existing California law and reflect similar structures previously approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Step 1 Recommendation outlines a logical development in regional markets that maximizes the autonomy and independence of the WEIM GB while still preserving California’s ability to pursue its own priorities. Providing the WEIM GB with Primary Authority over market-related tariff provisions would make meaningful progress towards addressing a perceived lack of independence present under the Joint Authority model used for the WEIM and EDAM today, potentially attracting a broader set of Western Entities to the EDAM.

As the CAISO implements the Step 1 Recommendation, it should retain the ability for the WEIM GB and CAISO BOG to have informal discussions or briefings on primary authority items before a proposal goes to the WEIM GB for their vote and to the CAISO BOG for their consent agenda. The existing Joint Authority model has provided the WEIM GB and CAISO BOG opportunities to meet and discuss policy issues between the two bodies before voting on such issues. These discussions have been extremely productive, and stakeholders or the WEIM GB may also see value in continuing to coordinate with the CAISO BOG on policies with different implications on one set of stakeholders versus another. The CAISO should seek to provide a forum for these discussions to continue to occur under the Primary Authority model.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The Step 1 Recommendation would modify the dispute resolution procedures to require that the CAISO make a “dual filing” with FERC if the existing dispute resolution procedures do not resolve the dispute.[1] The dual filing would put forth two “co-equal proposals” with no preference indicated in the filing.[2] The dual filing concept is similar to the “jump ball” process used in New England, in which FERC has evaluated an ISO New England proposal and a New England Power Pool proposal and determined which proposal was “just and reasonable” and “preferable.”[3] CalCCA supports the dual filing concept, but recommends the CAISO further develop the concept in the following areas:  

Triggering Dual Filing

After undertaking the other dispute resolution steps, what is the process for triggering the dual filing? Who makes the final determination that a dual filing is necessary?

CAISO’s Role as the Filing Entity

How should the dual filing process be structured to ensure (1) that the WEIM Governing Body’s proposal is accurately and fairly articulated and (2) that the CAISO, as the entity responsible for making dual filings at FERC, does not express a preference, have a conflict, or have any other practical impediment to making one filing to FERC documenting the two alternatives to consider?

Post-Filing Roles

What are the respective post-filing roles of the CAISO and the WEIM Governing Body, and how will the WEIM Governing Body’s role be funded?

[1]            Step 1 Recommendation at 8.

[2]            Id.

[3]            Id. at 8-9.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

The Step 1 Recommendation proposes to incorporate mechanisms to protect customer interests into the WEIM Charter. It states that “… it is critical to consider how to carry the customer centered mandate forward” as customer protection is “a critical through-line back to the enabling statutes that ensures the delegation and evolution carry forward a fundamental positive aspect of CAISO.”[1] Mechanisms to protect customer interests are critical at this time. Ratepayers across the West, particularly in California, are currently facing an energy affordability crisis. As ratepayers continue to face new and increasing cost pressures during the clean energy transition a successful, well-structured EDAM holds a promising opportunity to meaningfully put downward pressure on rates.

The Body of State Regulators (BOSR) should continue to play an active role for state regulators to provide input into decision-making to ensure that each state and its customers’ interests are represented. The BOSR should continue to have an advisory role, when necessary, to represent state interests within the WEIM GB and CAISO BOG decision-making process.  

[1]            Step 1 Recommendation at 16.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Step 1 provides an implementation timeline that can support broad market participation. As Western entities are considering which paths toward regional coordination they want to pursue, it is critically important that the Pathways initiative adjust governance in a timely manner to incent coordination within the Western region and avoid a shift to the Southwest Power Pool’s “Markets +” over EDAM.

The Step 1 Recommendation proposes an implementation trigger to transition the Joint Authority model to the Primary Authority model. This trigger is an important element of the Step 1 Recommendation, which required California stakeholders to compromise on the governance of WEIM and EDAM. Ensuring that Step 1 actually expands the footprint of these markets before moving to the new governance structure provides assurance that the compromises had value.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

As Step 1 moves forward, the CAISO should confirm whether any further refinements are needed, either to the Step 1 Recommendation or to the CAISO’s existing processes, to ensure its roles as a BA and a TO are not impaired by the governance change.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

No position at this time.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) is the state-appointed independent ratepayer advocate at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).  Our goal is to ensure that all Californians have affordable, safe, and reliable utility services while advancing the state’s environmental goals.  Our advocacy efforts to protect California customers include energy, water, and communications regulatory matters.

Regional market integration offers several potential ratepayer benefits.  The first regional energy market, the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM), estimates that it has generated $5.5 billion in cumulative economic benefits since its inception in November 2014,[1] including over $900 billion in benefits to California Independent System Operator (CAISO) customers.[2]  The WEIM generates benefits primarily by dispatching the least-cost resources in the CAISO’s real-time energy markets (15 minutes and 5 minute) across a footprint that covers much of the West, as well as managing congestion along transmission lines.  Additionally, the WEIM reduces renewable resource curtailments by exporting renewable energy generated in California where transmission is available. 

The Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) will launch in early 2026 and is expected to expand these benefits to a much larger volume of the CAISO’s integrated energy markets, by including the day-ahead timeframe.  However, the volume of financial benefits for participants—including California ratepayers—will be determined in part by the size of the EDAM footprint, which is yet to be determined.  Likewise, benefits will also depend on policies that avoid cost shifting for the use of transmission in a regional market.[3]  One of the key factors behind the hesitation of some non-California balancing areas (BAs) to opt for the EDAM are concerns over the ongoing Joint Authority governance structure between the WEIM Governing Body (GB) and the CAISO Board of Governors (BOG).[4]  The West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative (WWGPI) was formed in response to these concerns and initiated by a letter from several state utility commissioners across the West (including California) which described a “proposal to form a separate, independently governed entity [that] is intended to shake loose from those concerns.”[5]  The WWGPI Step 1 Recommendation represents the product of the WWGPI Launch Committee[6] to pursue the commissioners’ call. 

[1] The WEIM economic benefits are estimated based on a counterfactual scenario representing the costs of dispatching resources internally to each participating BA without being able to take advantage of potentially cheaper sources of energy through the larger footprint.  See Western Energy Imbalance Market Benefits Report First Quarter 2024, April 30, 2024 at 5.  Available at: https://www.westerneim.com/Documents/iso-western-energy-imbalance-market-benefits-report-q1-2024.pdf.

[2] WEIM Benefits.  Available at: https://www.westerneim.com/Pages/About/QuarterlyBenefits.aspx.

[3] A regional market will need to compensate transmission owners (TOs) for use of their transmission in a regional energy market through an access charge that keeps TOs whole similar to the FERC approved EDAM access charge.  Order Accepting Tariff Revisions, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. ER24-1746-000, June 11, 2024 at 3-17.

[4] E.g., Bonneville Power Administration, Day-Ahead Market Policy Paper Attachment 1 Staff Recommendation on Day-Ahead Market Participation, April 2024 at 7-9.  Available at: https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/Aep/projects/day-ahead-market/2024/02-day-ahead-market-attachment-1-staff-recommendation.pdf.  E.g., Public Power Council, PPC Support for BPA’s Proposed Timeline and Continued Pursuit of Markets+ Participation, February 23, 2024 at 4.  Available at: https://www.bpa.gov/-/media/Aep/projects/day-ahead-market/2024/ppc-mdc-letter-bpa-leaning-m-support.pdf.

[5] State regulators’ call for viable path to electricity market inclusive of all western states, with independent governance, July 14, 2023 at 2.  Available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-CREPC-WIEB-Regulators-Call-for-West-Wide-Market-Solution-7-14-23-1.pdf.

[6] Cal Advocates’ former director, Matthew Baker, was a member of the Launch Committee as a representative of the Residential and Small Commercial Customers sector until his appointment as a California Public Utilities Commissioner on February 15, 2024.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

The WWGPI describes Step 1 of the Straw Proposal as “[p]rogressing independent governance of the existing WEIM/EDAM Governing Body within the current CAISO structure in a way that presents little or no California legal risk.”[1]  Step 1 will elevate the decision-making authority of the WEIM GB from “Joint Authority” with the CAISO BOG to “Primary Authority.”[2]  Step 1 will be triggered upon the “execution of implementation agreements by a set of geographically diverse non-CAISO WEIM Entities equal to or greater than 70% of the CAISO BAA annual load for 2022.”[3] 

Cal Advocates generally supports an incremental approach to Step 1 as provided in the WWGPI Launch Committee’s Step 1 Recommendation.  Cal Advocates supports steps that will achieve the lowest energy costs available to ratepayers, and steps that avoid unnecessary incremental costs for ratepayers.  Nonetheless, although the Step 1 Recommendation suggests that Step 1 presents little risk of net financial costs to ratepayers, it is clear that Step 1 would represent a tangible—and inequitably shared—oversight loss to California ratepayers.  If Step 1 is triggered by 70% of the CAISO BAA annual load for 2022, the CAISO will still make up 59% of the Regional Organization’s (RO) load by energy served.[4]  In other words, the CAISO and California ratepayers would cede their electricity market self-determination to an RO, even while they represent a majority and possibly even a supermajority of that load.  Such changes should not be taken lightly. 

[1] Stakeholder Guidance Letter, April 10, 2024 at 2.  Available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/Stakeholder-Guidance.pdf.

[2] WWGPI, Step 1 Recommendation: Final Draft (Step 1 Recommendation), May 24, 2024 at 7.  Available at: https://stakeholdercenter.caiso.com/InitiativeDocuments/FinalProposal-WestWideGovernancePathwaysStep1-June7,2024.pdf.

[3] Step 1 Recommendation at 12.  This trigger threshold will likely be achieved now that NV Energy has indicated it intends to join EDAM. 

[4] Taking a whole-of-California perspective, the additions of BANC and SMUD’s load mean that at least 69% of the RO’s load would be internal to California. 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

Cal Advocates has no comments at this time.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

Cal Advocates participated in a development of principles to guide regionalization in the west that would protect consumers and commit to the public interest.  Protecting the public interest requires that a specific entity is empowered to, for example, intervene, access data, and appeal decisions where necessary. Cal Advocates seeks a more active role for consumer advocates and endorses the following outcomes and consumer protections from the attached 2024 Gridworks paper, for the RO to operationalize the proposed public interest safeguards:[1]

1. Expand the unique purpose and function of consumer advocacy to the regional level;
2. No net increase in retail electricity rates/bills for residential/small commercial consumers as a result of utility participation in a Regional Organization.  In simplest terms: “Do No Harm!”
3. Strong market oversight; data access, and transparency;
4. Fair and transparent decision-making;
5. Adopt established good governance principles; and
6. States retain resource planning and retail rate authority. 

The implementation of these recommendations will likely result in modest structural modifications in future proposals. 

The changes proposed by the Launch Committee to the WEIM Charter explicitly prioritize customer interests.  However, the responsibility to pursue and defend those interests must also be assigned to a unique party.  The Call to Action paper best describes the role sought by consumer advocates, as follows:[2]

[T]he most fundamental need for small consumers in a Regional Organization is that the role of state-sanctioned Consumer Advocates continues to be formally recognized and prioritized—not just as “another stakeholder” but as the official voice of the small consumers who ultimately pay the bills and an essential part of maintaining state policy with respect to utility regulation. In order for this to occur, a dedicated funding stream must be established at the outset of the Regional Organization to support the coordinated participation of state Consumer Advocates in the processes of the Regional Organization. This funding stream should be a separate line item in the Regional Organization budget or a separate surcharge. The funding stream should be used to create a standalone Consumer Office that acts as a liaison to state Consumer Advocates and coordinates their participation in the Regional Organization’s decision-making processes.

An example of such an entity is the Consumer Advocates of the PJM States, Inc. (CAPS). FERC approved the ongoing funding of CAPS via the PJM budget in 154 FERC ¶ 61,147 (2016). The organization attends PJM stakeholder meetings and regularly informs its member state Consumer Advocates of the RTO’s activities. While the internal organization of a CAPS-equivalent for the West should be determined by the Consumer Advocates themselves, the availability of dedicated funding and an established voice is imperative, as the existing state Consumer Advocate offices in the West, individually and collectively, are not resourced to participate in new regional forums.

Cal Advocates proposes that the Launch Committee formalize the role of consumer advocates in an RO, and create a new consumer advocates office that would ultimately advise the existing state Consumer Advocate offices in the west.  Future RO proposals will need to clarify issues such as how a new consumer advocates office will be directed by the participating state Consumer Advocate offices, whether a new consumer advocates office can advocate on behalf of members, and how state Consumer Advocate offices participate in RO initiatives on issues that lack consensus among members. 

[1] See the attachment to these comments for (1) the Call to Action and, (2) Gridworks, State Consumer Advocates and Western Electricity Regionalization: A call to protect consumers and commit to the public interest, March 2024 at 3.

[2] See attachment to these comments.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Cal Advocates has no comments at this time.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The Straw Proposal that informed the Step 1 Recommendation states “that the appropriate role of the [Department of Market Monitoring (DMM)] itself going forward vis a vis the RO is also an open question for Step 2."[1]  Cal Advocates agrees.  DMM’s role in a future RO—and even under the Step 1 change—is crucial and deserves specific attention from stakeholders.  Specifically, the CAISO should ensure that any changes made as a result of the Step 1 Recommendation ensure the full independence and integrity of DMM.  Future proposals in WWGPI should also answer questions including:

1. In each step, would the market monitor provide advice to both CAISO and the RO?
2. In each step, how would DMM be funded?
3. What safeguards are necessary in each step to ensure the full independence and integrity of DMM?
4. How would DMM coordinate with a state consumer advocate office?

In general, Cal Advocates supports solutions that prioritize DMM’s ongoing independence, access to data, scope of authority within or across the RO footprint, and transparency with stakeholders.  The role of the independent market monitor (IMM) for a new RO should not be an afterthought in the design and implementation of the RO tariff.  An IMM—whether that role is assigned to DMM or to another entity—must start concurrently with the RO.  Importantly, the IMM must have the expertise, independence, and staff resources to sufficiently monitor the RO markets effectively and to provide truly independent advice and recommendations on market design issues. 

[1] WWGPI, Phase 1 Straw Proposal, Appendix A, April 10, 2024 at 29.  Available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/Phase-1-Straw-Proposal.pdf.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

California Large Energy Consumers (CLECA) supports the Step 1 Recommendation and looks forward to participating in future Pathways Initiative discussions.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

No comment at this time

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

No comment at this time

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

No comment at this time

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

No comment at this time

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

CLECA encourages the Pathways Initiative stakeholders to develop a robust future governance stakeholder process that includes direct membership and representation by large customers.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is fully supportive of the Step 1 recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative (WWGPI).
EDF would like to commend the work that the Pathways team has put into crafting thoughtful and necessary modifications to the existing CAISO-WEIM relationship. Step 1 takes an appropriate incremental approach by working within the existing legal landscape to bring about significant economic and environmental benefits to consumers in the West.

EDF supports various elements of the Step 1 proposal, including the elevation of Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) Governing Body (GB) to primary authority, dual filing and trigger mechanisms, and substantive public interest safeguards are vital to the broader public interest goals.
These mechanisms allow for more equitable representation, minimize legal risks, and provide a solid foundation for the Regional Organization to achieve a long term regional electricity market, and the subsequent economic and environmental benefits for consumers.

Therefore, EDF strongly urges CAISO to adopt Step 1 recommendation.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

It is reasonable that the move to elevate WEIM GB decision-making from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority” because the current legislative restraints inhibit full proliferation of decarbonized electricity sources. Our opinion is that elevating WEIM decision making to “Primary Authority” is reasonable given that there are adequate safeguards and protections put in place for decision making. We would like to highlight the importance of a collaborative and engaged approach when establishing the relationship between the RO’s governing body, enabling sufficient stakeholder engagement and dispute resolution.

The governance structure should enhance the autonomy of the WEIM GB and the Step 1 proposal suggestions should foster a more balanced and equitable energy market. By providing the WEM GBwith “Primary Authority,” the governance framework will reduce potential conflicts of interest and ensure that decisions are made with a focus on the broader regional interests. This change reflects a pivotal step towards creating a more efficient, independent, and equitable governance structure for the Western energy markets.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

EDF fully supports the Step 1 proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing” opportunity. The modifications to the dispute resolution process are both fair and equitable because it allows both CAISO and WEIM to maintain a shared decision process, while carving out additional opportunities for WEIM to advocate on behalf of its customers, and preserving CAISO’s existing authority to to file under FERC under time exigent circumstances. EDF contends that approval of Step 1 would enhance transparency and fairness, address the balance of power through tariffs dispute process more equitably, while maintaining many robust dispute mechanisms that both parties have come to rely on. The benefits of “Dual Filing” mechanism allow both parties to maintain the spirit of a joint authority and in the event of “Dual Filing” mechanism is triggered, the proposed dispute mechanism favors neither party. EDF has full faith in FERC’s ability to act as a fair and neutral arbiter in dispute circumstances, provide a fair and impartial assessment, and the resulting tariff modifications. Because of this, EDF is fully supportive of the dual filing mechanism during non-time-critical circumstances. As noted in the Step 1 Proposal, EDF recommends that the discussion of the definition of “time-critical” should further be defined in order to mitigate any confusion regarding time exigent circumstances. EDF would like to further emphasize that CAISO maintains many of its legal authority provisions to still file FERC under time exigent circumstances. In addition, the ample opportunities to be able to work out grievances before will significantly reduce the need to trigger dual filing. EDF would like to emphasize that tariff changes approved by both WEIM GB and CAISO Board of Governors would be maintained and EDF believes that both parties can continue this amicable relationship and shared governance structure with the approval of Step 1. Neither CAISO nor WEIM have deployed exigent circumstance provision, but in the event that does, WEIM would have more equitable grounding to advocate for its tariff proposal and both parties would have already gone through a robust dispute resolution process.In conclusion, EDF is fully supportive of the “dual filing” mechanism as it would help resolve tariff disputes in a more equitable manner and in an already strong dispute resolution process that is consistent with both parties' charter and statutory framework.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

EDF strongly supports the proposal to move from Step 1 to Step 2 in the governance framework for the Western Energy Imbalance Market Governing Body. This transition is vital for ensuring robust public interest safeguards that protect consumers and the environment across participating states in the Western U.S. EDF acknowledges that existing safeguards within state law and the WEIM Charter, which collectively uphold the public interest. This framework has been instrumental in fostering a balanced approach that considers the interconnected nature of energy markets across state lines. However, as we proceed to Step 2, it is essential to strengthen these safeguards further. Protecting the economic interests of ratepayers must be central to this plan; therefore, the proposed governance enhancements must prioritize measures that control costs, ensuring that all consumers benefit from just market operations. The transition of an independent governance model must also uphold the principle of respecting state and local policies. The newly adopted decision must not impose one state’s resource decisions or costs on another state’s consumers, ensuring protections for the end consumer. By incorporating public interest safeguards and enhancing stakeholder involvement, this transition will significantly advance the goals of affordability, reliability, and sustainability for all Western states.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

EDF contends that both the requirements for implementation of the trigger (70% and geographic diversity) set bold yet achievable goals. EDF supports these requirements and trigger mechanisms more generally, because if exercised, they would bring about significant market adoption, resulting in economic and environmental benefits for customers. Given that CAISO already serves over 30 million customers, setting the trigger requirement at 70% of CAISO’s BAA load already represents a sizable market that would only benefit from more market participants. EDF supports the geographic diversity requirements for the trigger because it will effectuate meaningful benefits to a diverse group of utilities and their consumers. EDF appreciates the geniality that the Pathways initiative takes to welcoming more participants to join and benefit from Step 1. Geographic diversity ensures both additional generation resources and loads will be available to participate in this new market.EDF applauds the thoughtfulness and intentionality set forth by the Pathways committee and by CAISO and stakeholders to work to plan out the trigger accordingly in order to not disrupt customers if Step 1 implementation is achieved. Overall, EDF fully supports the well designed mechanism trigger for Step 1 implementation and the already strong support by utilities showcase the strength and desirability of the Pathways initiative.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

N/A

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Approval of the Step 1 Recommendation is an important signal to all stakeholders that a shift to more independent governance over market functions, to a board authorized to act for consumers including areas within California and outside of California is acceptable. 

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

The WEIM Joint Governing Body is well-equipped to exercise primary authority over market issues and it is an important step to show CAISO and California-based stakeholders will accept the transfer of decision -making authority.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The dual filing proposal will allow FERC to interpret the market tariff if the CAISO-based dispute resolution process does not resolve an issue due to areas of disagreement between the governing bodies. The separate filings will allow for description of what is a market-based issue and what may be a policy-driven dispute, and what can be decided based on the tariff.  It should only be a rarely-used last resort.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

The incorporation of public interest safeguards for participating states is vital to the credibility and legitimacy of the WEIM Joint Governing Body assuming primary authority over market functions.  

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

The Trigger is appropriate because it reflects an expansion of the footprint of EDAM which increases benefits to all customers involved in the EDAM market, including all who are currently projected to participate, including within CAISO. It is appropriate to increase benefits if they are going to agree to adjust the relative authority of the boards over market functions.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Step 1 is a significant advancement towards independent governance, to enable application of existing and planned assets and market operations to a wider footprint with greater diversity, which will benefit all market participants and consumers within the market territory.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The Joint Commenters (including Western Resource Advocates, Western Resource Advocates, Natural Resources Defense Council, Western Grid Group, Renewable Northwest, Union of Concerned Scientists, The Nature Conservancy, Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies and NW Energy Coalition) support  the Step 1 Recommendation which represents a significant increase to the WEIM Governing Body’s (“GB”) authority.[1]   Step 1 is a substantive and necessary step to creating an independent Regional Organization (“RO”) in the West, which builds on and supports the existing Western Energy Imbalance Market (“WEIM”) and to-be-implemented Extended Day-Ahead Market (“EDAM”).  As documented in the independent legal analysis performed by Perkins Coie for the West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative (WWGPI), the Step 1 recommendations represent a low risk of violating California law because the CAISO Board of Governors (“BoG”) would retain sufficient mechanisms to exercise control over the ultimate direction of CAISO activities with the WEIM GB in place.[2]  Similarly, the regulatory risk for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approval is low as the analysis explains that FERC has accepted market structures like the Step 1 Recommendation in the past.

Though Step 1 is not the end goal, its value and significance should not be underestimated. Step 1 demonstrates early commitment to the vision for an independent RO through substantive changes within the scope of existing law while Step 2 continues to be developed and implemented and the ultimate goal of a more ambitious pathway to independence is realized. Step 1 is critical for ensuring broader participation and confidence in the market, particularly from non-California stakeholders.

Multiple organized market participation studies demonstrate the most favorable electricity market for consumers is one that includes a single, large West-wide market footprint.[3]  A West-wide market and one that includes CAISO will maximize benefits for consumers, decreasing costs, increasing reliability and achieving carbon goals. The Joint Commenters have and will continue to advocate for these benefits.  Adequate geographic scope and configuration are key to achieving customer benefits.[4]  The Step 1 Recommendation is an important early step on the path to fully realizing this goal and the associated benefits for customers.

[1] Recommendation - West-Wide Governance Pathways - Step 1 - Jun 07, 2024; summarized in Presentation - West-Wide Governance Pathways - Step 1 - Jun 18, 2024, both available at: https://stakeholdercenter.caiso.com/StakeholderInitiatives/west-wide-governance-pathways-step-1 (“Step 1 Proposal”).

[2] Legal Evaluation of Framework for Pathway Options Under California and FERC Law, available at:   https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/Legal-Analysis.pdf.

[3] E.g., Energy Strategies, State-Led Market Study: Exploring Western Organized

Market Configurations: A Western States’ Study of Coordinated Market Options to Advance State Energy Policies

(July 30, 2021) available at: https://www.energystrat.com/new-insights-experience; Brattle EDAM Simulations:

PacifiCorp (April 2023), available at:  https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Brattle-EDAM-Simulations-PacifiCorp-Results.pdf.

[4] Grid Strategies, Market Configuration Matters: Effects of Market Choices on Consumers in the Northwest US (June 2024), available at: https://renewablenw.org/sites/default/files/Reports-Fact%20Sheets/Market%20Configuration%20Matters%20June%202024.pdf (The Report also raises concerns about  market seams which are a drag on efficiency and could create opportunities for market manipulation, especially in the Northwest.)

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

The Joint Commenters support the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB's decision-making from "Joint Authority" to "Primary Authority." This change is essential for fostering a well-balanced and independent governance structure that represents a broader range of stakeholders across the western region, thereby addressing governance concerns of some potential EDAM participants.

A significant benefit of Joint Authority is having the two governing entities meet together.  The collaborative process has been very beneficial.  If the Step 1 Recommendation is adopted and the GB transitions to Primary Authority, we encourage CAISO to develop opportunities for continued collaboration between the two governing entities.  

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The Joint Commenters support the addition of dual filing. The proposal to elevate the GB decision-making from Joint to Primary Authority, combined with the proposal to include dual filing into the dispute resolution process, is a significant near-term incremental increase in independent governance. While the expectation is that dual filing will be exceptional or nonexistent, the inclusion of this mechanism provides added incentive for the two governing entities to reach a compromise and have disputes resolved in the West. However, if agreement cannot be reached, this mechanism enhances fairness and transparency in resolving disputes by allowing both the WEIM GB and CAISO BoG to engage directly with FERC, ensuring that western participants will have equal opportunity to file.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

The Joint Commenters strongly support the incorporation of public interest safeguards for participating states in the WEIM GB Charter. These crucial safeguards will protect state and local procurement, environmental, and reliability policies, ensuring that the governance structure respects and integrates diverse state interests.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

The Joint Commenters agree that the trigger represents the correct balancing of interests, with both non-CAISO load and geographic diversity components, and contingent upon signing EDAM implementation agreements.[1] This is sufficient to ensure that the Step 1 governance enhancements result in a broader EDAM footprint to realize potential load, resource and locational diversity, which warrants implementing the Step 1 recommendations. PacifiCorp and PGE have already signed implementation agreements. Therefore, it is our understanding that the trigger will be met when, for example, the entities that have already expressed their intention to join EDAM also sign implementation agreements, i.e., BANC, LADWP and NVE. We urge CAISO to adopt the Step 1 proposal and to move forward with the next steps necessary for implementation (i.e., drafting tariff language and filing for FERC approval) as soon as possible so that the enhanced governance structure is in place to encourage further participation in EDAM and to implement when the trigger conditions are met.

[1] Step 1 Proposal, pages 11-12 (see Response to Question 2, FN 1).

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The establishment and progress of the WWGPI, described below, is indicative of the significance this work represents to Western stakeholders and the urgency they place on it.  Given the stakeholder process that has thus far taken place, we urge the CAISO to move forward with the Step 1 Recommendation as quickly as possible.

In July, 2023, a group of individual regulators from around the West put forth the concept of a new, independently governed entity that will leverage and accelerate the progress made to date by the WEIM and the EDAM.  During the Fall, this concept developed into an Initiative led by a volunteer Launch Committee composed of 36 stakeholders (members and alternatives) from 12 sectors, including representation from investor owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, federal power marketers, independent power producers, regulators, public interest organizations, labor and consumer advocates from around the West including California.  Given the importance of this work, public interest organizations (PIOs) accepted the state regulators’ open invitation to participate fully in the process at the earliest stage. The WWGPI Launch Committee includes members of PIOs that represent California, the Pacific Northwest and the interior mountain states.^[1]

During the next few months the Launch Committee developed a Mission and Charter, work plan and budget, elected a leadership team, established a website, formed a business organization, contracted for both project management services and fiscal management services, and developed the infrastructure to raise funds to support the Initiative’s work, primarily for project management and legal analysis. Concurrently, the Launch Committee was conducting the research necessary to further its primary mission and developed and conducted a public engagement and outreach strategy. This narrative is indicative of both the urgency and significance this initiative represents to stakeholders in the West. 

From the beginning and as their work progressed, the Launch Committee conducted regular general meetings and provided continuous opportunities for input from other stakeholders. For example, the WWGPI released a series of public packages (4) for consideration and public comment: 1) West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative Overview and Questions for Stakeholders (August 29, 2023); 2) Phase Zero Comments Response & Phase One Straw Proposal (September 29, 2023); 3) Initial Evaluation Framework for Pathways Options (December 15, 2023); and 4) package including the Independent Legal Analysis and the Step 1 Straw Proposal under consideration now (April 12, 2024). Each release has been a significant step further in refining a proposal, and each was accompanied by a public meeting and a period for written stakeholder comments.  The Joint Commenters have provided feedback in response to each of these opportunities and are satisfied that our comments have been considered and addressed to date.^[2]  We fully support the Step 1 Recommendation.

In addition, we commend the Launch Committee for detailed and thoughtful proposals that include the basis for their leanings and recommendations and the steps they took to include and encourage broad stakeholder participation.  For example, supporting materials including recorded public meetings, public packages and stakeholder comments are accessible and easy to find on the WWGPI webpage --a step which supports and encourages engagement by stakeholders with fewer resources or who are newer to the process.[3]

We understand and agree that the WWGPI stakeholder process is not a substitute for the CAISO stakeholder process, though it should be considered in evaluating the quality of their Step 1 Recommendation, and appreciate CAISO launching this initiate now.  Barring any substantial and credible concerns raised at this juncture, we urge CAISO to move forward with the approval process for the Step 1 Recommendation as quickly as possible.

[1]  Roster of Launch Committee Members (April 2024), available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/LC-Roster-and-Working-Groups-Final-April-2024.pdf.

[2] Joint Comments on West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative Overview and Questions for Stakeholders (September 11, 2023) available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/Comments-of-Public-Interest-Organizations.pdf; Joint Comments on West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative Phase One Straw Proposal (October 16, 2023), available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/WWGPI-PIO-Comments-on-Str-Prop-Oct-16.pdf; Joint Comments on West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative Initial Evaluation Framework for Pathways Options (January 12, 2023), available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/Joint-PIO-Comments-on-Initial-Evaluation-Framework-for-Options_WWGPI_1.12.24.pdf; Joint Comments on West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative Phase 1 Straw Proposal (May 8, 2023), available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/17.-PIO-Joint-Comments-on-WWGPI-Phase-1-Straw-Proposal.pdf.

[3] WWGPI webpage: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wwgpi/.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

OPPOSE

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

PREMATURE FOR LEGAL AND POLICY REASONS -- (1) SHOULD WAIT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EDAM THROUGH SUMMER PERIOD (Q3 2026); (2) SHOULD WAIT FOR AG OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL UNDERMINES LEGAL AUTHORITY OF CAISO BOARD.

DAMAGING FOR CALIFORNIA END-USERS (NATIVE LOAD) AND THEREFORE VIOLATIVE OF CAISO PUBLIC PURPOSE STATUTES.

PATHWAYS LAUNCH COMMITTEE UNREPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA END-USERS (NATIVE LOAD).

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

PREMATURE FOR LEGAL AND POLICY REASONS -- (1) SHOULD WAIT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EDAM THROUGH SUMMER PERIOD (Q3 2026); (2) SHOULD WAIT FOR AG OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL UNDERMINES LEGAL AUTHORITY OF CAISO BOARD.

DAMAGING FOR CALIFORNIA END-USERS (NATIVE LOAD) AND THEREFORE VIOLATIVE OF CAISO PUBLIC PURPOSE STATUTES.

PATHWAYS LAUNCH COMMITTEE UNREPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA END-USERS (NATIVE LOAD)

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

PREMATURE FOR LEGAL AND POLICY REASONS -- SHOULD WAIT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF EDAM THROUGH SUMMER PERIOD (Q3 2026); (2) SHOULD WAIT FOR AG OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSAL UNDERMINES LEGAL AUTHORITY OF CAISO BOARD.

DAMAGING FOR CALIFORNIA END-USERS (NATIVE LOAD) AND THEREFORE VIOLATIVE OF CAISO PUBLIC PURPOSE STATUTES.

PATHWAYS LAUNCH COMMITTEE UNREPRESENTATIVE OF CALIFORNIA END-USERS (NATIVE LOAD)

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

NO COMMENT

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

EDAM IS NOT OPERATIONAL SO TRIGGER IS MEANINGLESS.  EDAM SHOULD OPERATE UNDER CURRENT LAW FOR AT LEAST 2026 BEFORE ANY GOVERNANCE CHANGES ARE CONSIDERED.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

NO COMMENT

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

As noted in the September 29, 2023, West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative Phase One Straw proposal document, “[t]here was broad stakeholder agreement that joint authority was a sufficient approach for the governance of the Western EIM, and while many stakeholders felt that joint authority was also adequate for EDAM, the level of agreement was not as broad.” NV Energy was one of the entities that opposed the extension of joint authority. Thus, NV Energy appreciates the impetus behind the West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative that more should be done to improve the status quo in which the California Governor-appointed Board has a veto over market initiatives.

NV Energy has consistently advocated that, as a foundational principle, the CAISO should seek to achieve the maximum independence of the market consistent with existing California law. Step 1 achieves this objective. The Launch Committee engaged in a thorough examination of this critical issue, retaining outside counsel to review the feasibility of different governance structures.

The elements included in the Step 1 proposal: (1) elevate EIM Governing Body decision-making from “joint authority” to “primary authority” over initiatives that apply to the day ahead or real-time market, (2) modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “dual filing,” and (3) incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states were carefully crafted to enhance independent authority over market governance to the limit permitted under existing California law. That Step 1 was adopted unanimously by the diverse Launch Committee shows the importance of the proposal in expanding organized market opportunities in the West, including California.  Approval by the EIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors would be a strong statement of recognition that the markets must be overseen by an independently selected body.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

NV Energy strongly supports the proposal to vest primary authority with respect to market-related initiatives with the EIM Governing Body. In detailed discussions, the Launch Committee reviewed the “applies to” test developed by the Governance Review Committee and found it well-suited as the criteria to determine the scope of this primary authority.

To those who would advocate that implementation of primary authority would decrease the dialogue between the Governing Body and the Board of Governors, the objective is a transfer of primary oversight responsibly for the markets to the independent EIM Governing Body. While under current California law, the role of the Board of Governors cannot be eliminated, it can be modified. Moreover, the Board members will have numerous opportunities to engage on issues, including review of comments, CAISO proposals, and briefing materials, to listen stakeholder meetings and to participate in the EIM Governing Body meeting. The CAISO could maintain the joint meeting structure and modify the voting practice.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

NV Energy strongly supports the modification of the current dispute resolution process to include a dual section 205 (“jump ball”) filing as a critical element of the Step 1 proposal. First, it is important to recognize that this dual filing would only come into play after an extensive effort to resolve the issue through remand to the stakeholder process consistent with section 2.2 of the current Charter for WEIM and EDAM Governance.

Second, the mere existence of the dual filing option provides greater parity in the negotiations as there is no veto right on the part of the Board of Governors. Moreover, the dual filing approach, as demonstrated by the limited applications in ISO New England, resolves the burden of proof issue that would otherwise be present. Under FERC’s precedent, a utility filing under section 205 of the Federal Power Act need only show that its proposal is “just and reasonable.” It does not have to prove the provision to be the best or superior to any proffered options. By giving the EIM Governing Body equal section 205 rights to the Board of Governors, the Commission would then have the authority, consistent with the revised CAISO tariff, to choose which approach FERC deemed to be the better option. Accordingly, the most important part of the dual filing is not the expectation it will be used, but rather the mere fact of its existence places the EIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board in a more equal relationship with respect to market initiatives. 

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

NV Energy supports the additional emphasis on public interest safeguards. Courts have found that that the Federal Power Act is a consumer protection statute. For example, Pa. Water & Power Co. v. FPC, 343 U.S. 414, 418 (1952) stating that, “[a] major purpose of the whole [Federal Power] Act is to protect power consumers against excessive prices,” or Pub. Sys. v. FERC, 606 F.2d 973, 979 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1979) providing that “the Federal Power Act aim[s] to protect consumers from exorbitant prices and unfair business practices.” Markets exist to provide reliable service at just and reasonable rates. Public interest is a foundational element to market design.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

NV Energy recognizes the importance to a number of parties that a change in the decisional authority should be associated with the establishment of an extended day-ahead market of sufficient size and geographic diversity. In a June 24, 2024, presentation to the Nevada Regional Transmission Coordination Task Force, the CAISO noted that if PacifiCorp, BANC, LADWP, Portland General Electric, Idaho Power and NV Energy join EDAM, the market would cover nearly 50% of the demand in the West. The proposed criteria appropriately recognize that a market with at least this level of participation would be sufficient to trigger the expanded scope of authority for the EIM Governing Body.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Step 1 builds upon the demonstrated capabilities of the existing, independent EIM Governing Body members. It takes advantage of established selection and funding process as well as the EIM Governing Body’s relationship to the existing CAISO stakeholder process and the Body of State Regulators. Proceeding in a stepped or phased manner should help entities making market decisions in 2024. Choices can be based on what is known and implementable without legislative action, building upon demonstrated structures and processes.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

PacifiCorp is a member of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative (Pathways) Launch Committee (LC) and has been actively involved in formulating the Step 1 recommendation. PacifiCorp fully supports the Step 1 recommendation as the company believes it is a significant and meaningful improvement on the existing governance of the WEIM and EDAM. PacifiCorp understands that this is a pivotal issue for many future and potential EDAM participants. PacifiCorp believes that consumers will benefit most from a day-ahead market in the West that supports participation from the broadest footprint possible. As such, it is PacifiCorp’s view that the incremental governance development proposed in Step 1 is the most logical path to independent governance of the WEIM and EDAM. PacifiCorp saw many benefits of incrementally improving the governance structure of the WEIM as more entities joined, and so the company believes that a similar model is best suited as the EDAM grows.  

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

PacifiCorp supports elevating the WEIM Governing Body’s (GB) decision-making authority to primary authority.  

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

PacifiCorp supports the dual-filing resolution process as proposed in the Step 1 recommendation.  

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

PacifiCorp is not opposed to incorporating public interest safeguards in the WEIM Charter and agrees with the Step 1 recommendation that the Body of State Regulators (BOSR) continue to actively work with the WEIM GB to provide input into the decision-making process.  

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

PacifiCorp supports the trigger mechanism for Step 1 implementation as the company believes it ensures governance changes will occur once there is a broad, geographically diverse EDAM footprint.  

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

In past stakeholder meetings and comments, a few stakeholders have expressed concern that transitioning the decision-making authority of the WEIM GB from joint to primary authority will lead to the WEIM GB and CAISO Board of Governors (BoG) no longer working collaboratively on decisions. This is not explicitly, or implicitly, stated in the Step 1 recommendation and it is not the intention of the LC to sideline the BoG from the decision-making process. PacifiCorp acknowledges the concern from the stakeholders who brought this possibility forward and PacifiCorp also believes that the WEIM GB and BoG should continue to collaborate after the decision-making authority of the WEIM GB is elevated to primary authority.  

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) appreciates the enormous effort to date by the CAISO, the WWGPI, and other stakeholders to advance the proposal to this point.

While Step 1 does not achieve full independence as many have requested, it represents a positive initial move towards regional governance within the constraints of current California law.  

PG&E shares the concerns of numerous stakeholders regarding the CAISO’s multiple functions (including reliability coordinator, market operator, and balancing areas operator). It is important for stakeholders to clearly understand which role the CAISO is fulfilling in each forum (stakeholder meetings, board presentations, Market Surveillance Committee meetings, presentations to the RIF, etc.) for transparency, equity, and continued evolution of the western market efforts. 

PG&E supports making further modifications to the CAISO’s stakeholder process to enhance access, clarity, and transparency for the stakeholder community.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

PG&E supports elevating the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) Governing Body decision making from joint authority to primary authority. This modification creates equitable governance in a regional market.

PG&E recognizes that while Step 1 does not achieve the full independence that many stakeholders have requested, it does represent a significant positive step within the current California corporate law to allow for equitable governance in a truly regional market.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

PG&E supports the “dual filing” provisions of Step 1. The dual filing model is an appropriate and fair model for the Extended Day-Ahead Market within the current California law.  

While the dual filing does not go all the way to the full independence many have requested, it is consistent with California law while enabling the CAISO’s Board of Governors to extend Authority to the WEIM Governing Body. Further, PG&E expects dual filings to be rare and extremely limited (if ever utilized) while the Step 1 Governance is in effect.

PG&E continues to encourage and expect both the CAISO’s Board of Governors and the WEIM Governing Body to continue and expand the productive, healthy, working relationship that builds on the last 10 years of collaboration. The two bodies have already been working together to deliver a robust market that has considered stakeholders and customers in all their evaluations of activities and efforts.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

No comment.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

PG&E supports the ‘Trigger’ mechanism in the Step 1 proposal. This represents a meaningful commitment to the extended day-ahead market (EDAM) from a significant amount of geographically diverse energy load entities.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

PG&E appreciates the enormous effort to date by the CAISO to refine and further the stakeholder process by encouraging more voices and a more stakeholder driven input process. As indicated in our response to question two above, PG&E supports making further modifications to the CAISO’s stakeholder process to enhance access, clarity, and transparency for the stakeholder community.

Similarly, as indicated in our response to question two above, PG&E seeks clarification from the CAISO regarding their various functions (reliability coordinator, market operator, and balancing areas operator, etc.) at each forum CAISO participates in.  

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Portland General Electric Company (PGE) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Step 1 recommendations of the West-Wide Governance Pathway Initiative (WGP). As a Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) and Extended Day Ahead Market (EDAM) participant and a proponent of organized market expansion in the west, PGE appreciates the work the Launch Committee has done to outline a stepwise approach to address the continued challenge of governance and removal of barriers for the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to expand its Regional Market Operator (RO) services outside of California. PGE believes Step 1 is an appropriate evolution of the CAISO governance structure that addresses key stakeholder concerns, enabling the expansion of the EDAM footprint. Implementation of Step 1 will create a more independent governance structure that expands participation in the EDAM market, offers a balanced dispute resolution approach, and ensures state and local interests are respected as WGP continues its work to evolve the governance structures that will support a west-wide market. For all these reasons, PGE supports the Step 1 proposal.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

PGE supports the proposal to elevate the WEIM Governing Body decision-making authority to Primary Authority. While PGE was member of the Governance Review Committee (GRC) and supported the initial approach to Joint Authority as an incremental step towards an equitable approach to governance for the extended day ahead market PGE finds that moving to the Primary Authority model builds on the GRC's work and enhances the independent nature of the WEIM governing body as the primary decision maker for specific market initiatives. PGE understands that Primary Authority is a component of governance that many market participants have identified as a key decisional criterion for participation in the EDAM. While PGE was initially satisfied with Joint Authority, what PGE particularly supports is expanding the number of participants in the EDAM who have confidence in the independence of the governance structure over the market. This confidence will enable the broadest participation within the market footprint, enabling the success of the initiative. 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

PGE supports the proposal to move to a Dual-Filing dispute resolution process. This change will create a balanced approach to dispute resolution that achieves genuine parity between the CAISO Board of Governors and the WEIM Governing Body. When a dispute arises, which PGE expects to be rare based on other markets that allow dual filing, two competing proposals can be submitted to FERC and the merits of both proposals can be evaluated on an equal basis by an independent regulatory agency with no favor being given to either proposal. PGE believes this is a reasonable approach to dispute resolution as the work of the Pathways Initiative continues.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

PGE supports the incorporation of public interest safeguards into the WEIM charter as outlined in the Step 1 proposal. As the footprint of the CAISO markets grows and the WGP continues its work it is important to make sure that local and state policies are respected. Ours is a diverse region with diverse stakeholders and incorporating recognition of state and local interests into the charter makes clear that no one interest will outweigh others in this process.  

PGE finds that the elevation of public interest safeguards provides a necessary assurance that the market design will continue to evolve in a manner consistent with state interests.  While no single state should be able to dictate market design, ensuring safeguards that enable the market to accommodate specific state policies, like carbon pricing, offer an assurance that western states will continue to see their local public policies accommodated in the market design.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

PGE supports the trigger as outlined in the Step 1 proposal. PGE believes that 70% of 2022 CAISO load is an appropriate metric for determining when the footprint of the EDAM has reached a sufficient size to warrant moving forward with Step 1.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

PGE encourages CAISO to incorporate stakeholder feedback from this round of comments and move forward with adopting the Step One recommendation from the Westwide Governance Pathways Initiative as expeditiously as possible.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Neutral.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

In the Pathways Launch Committee process, PGP has been supportive of the consideration of options that may increase the autonomy of decision-making over market rules in the short-term such as the Step 1 Recommendation. While supportive of the recommendation and increasing the autonomy of the WEIM Governing Body as a first step, PGP notes that Step 1 falls short of achieving complete independence because the CAISO Board of Governors continues to be appointed by the Governor of California and retains ultimate oversight of market design development decisions associated with services provided by the market operator. From PGP’s perspective, independence is only achieved when the decision-making body has sole filing rights and the decision-making body’s authority is not revocable (e.g., the authority is not dual nor is it delegated).

PGP’s support for Step 1 is also rooted in its support for improved governance structures for all markets—in the context of participating in that market or interacting with a neighboring market across a seam. It is imperative that all organized markets in the West operate under structures that result in market rules that achieve actual and perceived fairness and equitable outcomes.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

In prior comments to the Governance Review Committee (GRC), PGP supported joint authority for the CAISO Board and the WEIM Governing Body as a decision-making framework that would encourage important collaboration and trust building between the two bodies to enable robust and informed decision-making. While PGP believes that there continues to be value in this concept given the legal need for the CAISO Board to maintain backstop authority, PGP also recognizes that the scope of primary authority defined by the ‘apply to’ test contemplated in Step 1 was not considered by the GRC. PGP also recognizes the desire by a number of stakeholders to demonstrate early progress and commitment to the trajectory. PGP is therefore supportive of either joint or primary models so long as the broader scope adopted in the EDAM governance process is maintained for the EIM Governing Body.

If a “Primary Authority” model is adopted, PGP recommends that some consideration be given to continue developing the collaboration between the CAISO Board and the WEIM Governing Body that the Joint Authority model was intended to encourage. While the bodies will not be required to collaborate for decision-making purposes, there may be opportunities for the bodies to continue to work together on key issues. PGP recommends that CAISO staff consider a continuation of periodic joint meetings or other ways to encourage this collaboration.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

In past iterations of governance review, PGP has advocated for incorporating a ‘dual filing’ mechanism within the dispute resolution process but ultimately supported and accepted the GRC’s recommendation not to adopt such a mechanism. In part, the reason for this was that PGP saw the dual filing process itself as potentially confusing and administratively challenging. In its submission to CAISO, the Launch Committee provides additional detail about the nature of the dual filings and how FERC may be expected to render a decision. The Launch Committee clarified that, in the NEPOOL example, FERC may select a preferred approach or preferred elements from co-equal proposals that both meet the just and reasonable standard set by FERC. While PGP continues to harbor some reservations about the mechanics and implementation of a dual filing, the additional explanation is appreciated, and PGP does not recommend any further changes to the proposal. PGP recognizes that the dual filing option provides a single point where the WEIM Governing Body may exercise its independent judgment in contradiction to the CAISO Board and that this element has been noted by some entities as critical. PGP therefore does not oppose the Pathways Step 1 proposal to adopt a dual filing option.

In its comments to the Launch Committee on its Step 1 proposal, PGP also recommended that further detail be developed around the exception for time-critical exigent circumstances and that this exception should be narrowly construed so that it cannot be used as a mechanism to circumvent the dual filing process. In its letter to CAISO, the Launch Committee included additional detail on this provision, noting that exigent and time critical circumstances are generally not defined in other RTO tariffs, and that exigent circumstances can more reasonably be defined on a case-by-case basis. PGP recognizes that while specific ‘time-critical’ circumstances may be difficult to define, there may be a way to make clear that is intended to be narrowly construed. PGP recommends CAISO staff consider if there are ways to further note the limited nature of the exception and that it is not intended to be a way to circumvent the dual filing process.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

PGP supports the incorporation of public interest safeguards and appreciates the added reference to “local” authorities to reflect the policies and governance structures applicable to non-jurisdictional entities.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

No comment.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

No comment.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Please refer to the attached PPC comments on the Phase 1 Pathways Straw Proposal.  We reiterate and highlight several points of those comments below.

PPC appreciates the efforts of the Launch Committee and shares their interest in evolving and improving CAISO’s governance.  Adjustments to EDAM and EIM governance to reflect a more regional perspective would likely benefit Western stakeholders broadly.

PPC continues to have concerns with the current statutes and current structure related to CAISO’s governance.  Specifically:

• The appointment process for the CAISO Board of Governors (CAISO BOG).
• The inability for the CAISO BOG to completely or durably delegate authority to a more regionally representative decision-making body.
• The state specific focus of the BOG’s duties as specified in California Public Utilities Code Section 345.5.
• CAISO’s dual role as the Market Operator of the EIM and EDAM and a Balancing Authority Area participating in those markets.

Step 1 does not address these concerns and we are looking forward to more discussion of these issues in the Step 2 proposal which is being discussed and refined by the Launch Committee.

While Step 1 does not address these concerns, we understand that the Pathways Launch Committee is pursuing that proposal as a more near-term solution to address concerns raised by other stakeholders.  We look forward to comments from other CAISO stakeholders to better understand whether this proposal addresses those concerns and balances the interests of the broader CAISO stakeholder community.

PPC looks forward to additional information on the planned implementation of the proposed Step 1 changes.  We are also interested in discussion in CAISO forums as well as the process lead by the Pathways Launch Committee to understand whether implementation of Step 1 changes have any impact on stakeholders’ collective interests to pursue additional changes in Step 2.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Neutral

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

PSE appreciates the opportunity to comment on this fast-tracked initiative and encourages CAISO to take a thoughtful approach to the changes proposed in Step 1 and to demonstrate its willingness to take a regional perspective. PSE supports efforts toward regionalization and the existence of market options that allow customers in all states in the west to achieve the benefits of broad diversification a centralized market can offer. These benefits should not come at the cost of a significant imbalance of control or authority by one state or set of interests. Pathways Step 1 proposal retains substantial and overriding authority for the state of California through its statutory mandates, as administered through state agencies, the CAISO Bylaws, and the CAISO tariff.

PSE’s principles for governance include:

• Comparable influence in market design and market operation for all states participating in the market;
• Stakeholders initiate, develop, and own market development, with a transparent sector-based voting record to demonstrate positions;
• Clear division between market operator and market participant BAAs;
• Clear and consistent process for stakeholders to elevate and prioritize issues;
• Participants take a regional view;
• Minority views are on record

Although Step 1 does not address PSE’s principles for independent governance, PSE does not oppose the pursuit of the concept of Step 1 as a move toward independence with the following amendments, discussed further in these comments:

• Modification of the Step 1 trigger to remove the geographic criteria, require FERC approval of the EDAM implementation agreement, and define a process in the event the load ratios between California and the other western states are not maintained; 
• Identification of the sections of the Charter for WEIM and EDAM Governance (Charter), ISO Bylaws, and tariff that will be needed to memorialize the elements of Step 1, such as the modified dispute resolution process, dual filing provisions, etc;
• Identification of the procedural elements needed to effectuate Step 1 – stakeholder processes, governing body hearings, votes, FERC filings, etc.;
• Commitment to modification of the necessary governing documents to memorialize how the “applies to” test functions and how it is administered;
• Deferral of amendments to the Charter until the changes needed to all governing documents are identified and addressed holistically.

PSE also has continued concerns with the transparency and selective engagement of this initiative. To date, the meetings of the Pathways Launch Committee and other committees have not been public and have lacked transparency. Thus, many of the details of how Step 1 will work, how it will procedurally be effectuated, questions still to be answered, or discussion of the modifications to the tariff, Charter, and ISO Bylaws have not been openly developed or shared. In short, this proposal was developed by a subset of interests and shared after the point at which the formative decisions had been made. As a WEIM participant who will be impacted by these changes, these types of actions are concerning from a public policy and governance perspective and do not establish the trust necessary to accomplish regional collaboration. PSE is encouraged by the recent public engagement opportunities the Pathways initiative has offered for the scoping of Step 2, and is hopeful Pathways will solicit and integrate feedback in those sessions from all stakeholders – not just those engaged in closed-door working groups, committees, and task forces.

With respect to the planned vote of the CAISO Board and WEIM Governing Body (Joint Bodies), it is unclear what CAISO will put before them for approval. Step 1 proposes a set of amendments to the Charter, but certainly not all the language that will be needed to effectuate Step 1. Other language will be needed, as well, in the ISO Bylaws and tariff to effectuate other provisions of Step 1, which are seemingly not before the stakeholders at this time or before the Joint Bodies for approval. PSE recommends the CAISO seek the approval of the Joint Bodies on the Step 1 concept only, and reserve all changes to the Charter and other governing documents for the next phase of development, should the Joint Bodies approve the conceptual elements of the Step 1 proposal.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

PSE does not oppose the proposal for the CAISO Board to grant Primary Authority to the WEIM Governing Body over all areas of the tariff for which the Governing Body has Joint Authority today, but significant detail remains to be memorialized in governing documents and tariff regarding the modified dispute resolution process, dual filing process, and other elements of the proposal.

PSE also requests CAISO commit to modification of the necessary governing documents to memorialize the administration, ownership, authority, and dispute resolution process for the “applies to” test which determines which sections of the tariff apply to a WEIM or EDAM entity in their role as a WEIM/EDAM entity. During the work of the Governance Review Committee (GRC), CAISO staff determined and provided the tariff sections it deemed to “apply to” the WEIM/EDAM entities and made the final determination about what applies to entities outside the state of California. The Charter today provides for a dispute resolution process regarding disagreement on the Decisional Classification handed down to the WEIM Governing Body from CAISO staff. While this dispute resolution process is important, it does not address the initial classification process for new initiatives, changes to market rules, and tariff language. At a minimum, the Charter,and potentially the ISO Bylaws, should be modified to include language describing the “applies to” test, who has primary authority to conduct it, how the test is designed and applied, the process for raising new sections of the tariff for review of the “applies to” test, and a process for review of the design and functioning of the test itself.

Additionally, PSE supports BPA’s request in its April 10, 2024 Phase 1 Straw Proposal comments on the Western Interstate Energy Board website to include a communication structure between the Joint Bodies to ensure collaboration under the new primary authority model.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

Step 1 proposes further modification to the current dispute resolution process between the Joint Bodies for proposed tariff changes within the WEIM-EDAM “Primary Authority” model for which agreement cannot be reached. PSE does not oppose the concept of the “Dual Filing” option in the Step 1 proposal, but requests consideration of the following amendments and concerns:

• Language effectuating Step 1 in the Charter, tariff, Bylaws, or other FERC filings has not been offered

At this time, Step 1 does not propose the necessary language in the Charter, Bylaws, or tariff for the Dual Filing process. Nor does it propose  how a dual filing would be triggered following a time critical or exigent circumstance in which the CAISO Board has unilaterally authorized a FERC filing. As this is a key feature of this proposal, it is critical that stakeholders have the opportunity to craft language for this complex mechanism. Absent language, PSE asks CAISO to clarify that amendments to the Charter will be deferred at this time and additional stakeholder processes will be conducted to develop language implementing and memorializing the Step 1 concept holistically across all governing documents, if the Joint Bodies approve the Step 1 concept.

• Addressing dual filing conflicts

A dual filing process has the potential to introduce misalignments or unintended outcomes.  CAISO should provide for stakeholder discussion on the treatment of conflicts that have the potential to arise in a dual filing construct. For example, if FERC was to accept a subset of provisions from one proposal and a subset of provisions from another, it could result in an aggregated outcome that either party, or neither party intended. These types of conflicts or asymmetries should be addressed in the development of the suite of governance documents needed to effectuate Step 1.  

• Justification for “exigent circumstances”

Section 2.2.2 (i) of the Charter should be modified to include the CAISO Board’s findings for justification for exigent or time critical circumstances in its FERC filing in the event CAISO supersedes the dual filing authority of the WEIM Governing Body. If FERC approves a dual filing model, it is important to have such circumstances on record to accompany any written opinion offered by the WEIM Governing Body. This will also serve to support any subsequent filings triggered by the WEIM Governing Body. In the Step 1 Modified Dispute Resolution Process, the CAISO Board will retain the authority to unilaterally authorize a FERC filing without the approval of the WEIM-EDAM Governing Body and without making a second attempt to find an acceptable proposal to both bodies in the event of “time critical circumstance where there is not sufficient time to develop and vote on a revised proposal.[1]” The dispute resolution process requires the CAISO Board “[…] must set forth the basis for any and all of its findings justifying exigent or time critical circumstances in writing.” Such a circumstance requires significant unilateral discretion on the part of the CAISO and the California-appointed body over changes that may have significant financial or reliability impacts to the customers of other states in the market. PSE and others have requested greater definition around the parameters of what constitutes “time critical or exigent circumstances” in prior comments to mitigate the lightly bounded authority of the CAISO Board in such circumstances. Pathways declined to provide any criteria on the basis that the GRC did not define “exigent circumstances.” But the exact point of this effort is that the region is moving beyond the GRC toward greater independence for the rest of the west. Under such a presumption, greater bounds are required on the existing CAISO authorities. Additionally, a much more significant portion of the resources and financial risk of entities outside California is exposed to this unilateral authority when moving from an imbalance-only market to a day-ahead market, predicating the need for guardrails on the CAISO Board’s authorities.  

[1] Charter for Governance of the WEIM and EDAM Governing Body

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

PSE supports a robust role for state regulators in the design and oversight of a multi-state market and is open to discussion and consideration of language amending the Charter and/or the ISO Bylaws to ensure that role is preserved. In addition, investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities act in the public interest today and must appeal to their commissions or local boards for recovery of prudently incurred costs in their duty to provide a public good. This is the most fundamental consumer safeguard. It is premature to discuss specific language to the Charter today without evaluating all of the affected governing documents across the market holistically, that work in concert to implement Step 1. 

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

PSE recommends the trigger be removed and the CAISO Board grant primary authority to the WEIM-EDAM Governing Body at the commencement of EDAM to avoid unnecessary delays and long overdue movement toward a market in which all states have an equal footing. The trigger, as proposed, seems to serve two purposes. First, it prioritizes CAISO’s objective to retain and expand its WEIM footprint over its objective to pursue independent governance for entities outside California. PSE’s view is that independent governance should be a condition for participation versus participation being a condition for independence. The primary objective of this initiative and the WEIM Governing Body should be the pursuit of foundational independent governance, not footprint expansion.  

PSE also acknowledges the trigger may serve the purpose of giving assurance to California entities that there is a reasonable expectation of participation in order to cede some level of control and move toward shared authority over the market. If the trigger is retained, PSE recommends three amendments to the proposal. First, the geographic element of the trigger should be removed. Geographic location is only relevant to the extent that geography includes different resource and load profiles, or the market utilizes a governance structure that provides for appropriate geographical representation in voting. Second, the trigger should be modified to ensure the EDAM implementation agreement has received FERC approval to ensure California entities have certainty the market participant will materialize prior to CAISO ceding authority. Lastly, the Step 1 proposal should include greater detail about the process in the event the load ratios between California and other western entities are not maintained.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

N/A

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Neutral.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) appreciates the opportunity to comment on CAISO’s West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative. SRP continues to prioritize the following factors when evaluating the governance model in any new regional market in which it contemplates participation:

1. Independence / transparency;

2. public power representation;

3. local resource decision-making; and

4. utility input on grid operations. 

With these factors in mind, SRP believes the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative Step 1, if fully successful, will not result in an independent governance structure that provides a level playing field for all participants. The concern is that CAISO remains both the market operator and a market participant for its own balancing authority area. The overarching governance design still allows a disproportionate amount of influence by California interests compared to non-California interests.

The meetings of the Pathways Launch Committee were not public. Although the outcomes and decisions of the Launch Committee were shared, it was not articulated why certain decisions were made and by whom. Many of the details of how Primary Authority will work, such as the proposed trigger mechanism, have not been fully or clearly articulated in a timely manner to ensure inclusive debate and dialogue. These actions are concerning. It is SRP’s hope that future efforts of the Pathways Initiative, such as Step 2, provides for more inclusive and transparent regional discussions with meetings that are open to all stakeholders.

In addition, SRP requests that the CAISO and stakeholders review the CAISO Tariff to determine if the “applies to” test needs to be expanded beyond the currently identified Tariff sections.  Additionally, SRP requests that the CAISO explicitly document the process for the “applies to” test that determines which Tariff sections would fall under the primary authority governance model. The current process is not well-documented in that it does not clearly state who administers the test, where the process is documented, and what the dispute resolution process is in the event market participants do not agree with the outcome especially because some aspects of the Tariff may impact the market rather than directly apply to the market.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

SRP remains concerned with the overall governance structure of the CAISO. Foundational issues remain regarding the move to primary authority of the WEIM Governing Body from joint authority.  SRP’s main concern is that the CAISO remains both a market participant and market operator thus blurring what and who it is advocating for during market initiative processes, exigent circumstances or scarcity conditions. For example, when the CAISO limits WEIM transfers or wheel throughs during scarcity events, there is an apparent conflict of interest between these dual roles. This construct results in California’s control over aspects of market decisions and design, resulting in ambiguities during times of reliability concerns and market pressures.

Additionally, staff of the CAISO would continue reporting to the Board of Governors under Phase 1 and allocate their time to priorities set by CAISO management. While the scope of the Tariff may be under decision-making of the WEIM Governing Body, staff time and priorities will remain under a management team that reports to the CAISO Board of Governors.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The Dual Filing proposal has the potential to create tension and mistrust between the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors, specifically when dual FERC filings are needed to settle differences. Despite the New England ISO/Power Pool precedent cited in the Phase 1 Proposal for the Pathways Initiative, a paradigm that requests that FERC act as the neutral and arbitrator of disputes between the WEIM Governing Body and CAISO Board of Governors may not be an appropriate governance model for the West. If anything, it is indicative of the lack of independence of the overall CAISO governance structure and need to resort to dual filings at FERC to resolve that lack of independence of the WEIM Governing Body. Even with a dual filing paradigm, the CAISO Board of Governors will continue to direct the priorities and directions of CAISO staff.

SRP supports BPA’s April 10, 2024, Phase 1 Straw Proposal Pathways comments to include a communication structure between the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors to ensure collaboration under the new primary authority model. Maintaining and further increasing communication between the two boards will allow for greater understanding during times of disagreement and hopefully reduce the need for dual filings.

Finally, it is unclear how often and to what extent dual filings will occur. SRP requests that this concept be monitored for its effectiveness and level of buy-in from market participants. If concerns are raised in how this concept is utilized, it may be necessary to re-evaluate its usefulness and effectiveness. SRP suggests that an analysis be conducted after its implementation to determine its effectiveness, impact, and to identify any improvements to its utilization if any.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

SRP does not have any concerns with incorporating public interest safeguards for participating states.  However, it is important to underscore the role of public power, which currently holds a liaison seat on the Body of State Regulators.  Public power has an obligation to protect consumers similar to the public interest safeguards identified in the Pathways Step 1 initiative.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

CAISO should reject the trigger and implement joint authority. SRP is not supportive of the proposed trigger and reverse trigger because it only focuses on an EDAM footprint rather than a market footprint in total (WEIM and EDAM), does not provide certainty to market participants on how governance will be applied in the market, and is being implemented to expand the EDAM footprint rather than to work towards equitable market constructs for both WEIM and EDAM participants.

SRP understands that both a load percentage and a geographic trigger are being proposed to enable the change from joint to primary authority to the WEIM Governing Body solely based on the EDAM footprint. A similar but reverse trigger also exists if EDAM market participants choose to leave EDAM.  SRP finds both the trigger and reverse trigger concerning because they create uncertainty as to how governance will occur under EDAM and WEIM. Essentially, it introduces tensions into the market, as participants will have the expectation of primary authority yet face the possibility of reverting to joint authority at any time should a participant exit EDAM. This can lead to a lack of trust or peer pressure to join or not leave EDAM in order to keep a desired governance structure. It is important to have a high-quality independent governance structure that is equitable and transparent rather than a footprint expansion mechanism such as this trigger solely based on one aspect of the market, EDAM.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

No additional comments at this time.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

SDG&E is generally supportive of the Step 1 Recommendation as proposed. This is a reasonable first step that will move the initiative’s efforts forward.  

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

The elevation of the WEIM GB to Primary Authority is a significant near-term incremental increase in independent governance, building on the existing governance structure while providing increased autonomy. SDG&E supports this proposal.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The Dual Filing resolution process is a seemingly fair and equitable way to settle disputes that may arise between CAISO and the WEIM GB. SDG&E supports this proposal.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

SDG&E is interested in further details regarding the commitment to incorporate public interest safeguards, noting that the implementation of this initiative should not cause any harm to any participating state, entity, or consumer.   

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

SDG&E is supportive of the Trigger to initiate Step 1, which would occur once a critical mass of geographically diverse entities commits to joining the Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM). It is logical for the process to move forward once a predetermined amount of load has committed to EDAM; however, as EDAM implementation agreements are non-binding, all expressions of intent to join EDAM are solely in good faith. This creates a scenario where the trigger is met, but entities may reverse their intention to affiliate with EDAM, which could result in the amount of committed load dropping below the trigger requirements. Without clarification, there is a possibility that this could stall the initiative. Therefore, a more defined process should be put in place to ensure a resolution in the event that the trigger is no longer met.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

SDG&E appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback to CAISO on this initiative, and looks forward to continuing engagement as the initiative proceeds.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

SCE strongly supports the Step 1 proposal to move the existing governance of the CAISO’s WEIM and EDAM toward greater independence.  Importantly, though, it remains necessary to wait for the execution of the implementation agreements with the full set of non-CAISO EDAM entities that meet the terms of the trigger.  Only after the execution of those agreements should Step 1 be initiated.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

SCE supports this proposal as there is a dispute resolution process that can be leveraged should the WEIM GB and the CAISO BoG not be able to resolve a dispute concerning proposed tariff changes. 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

SCE supports the proposal to modify the dispute resolution process.  SCE also expects these occurrences to be extremely rare, if at all.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

SCE supports the incorporation of safeguards to respect all local and state interests, including those of California; however, ultimately with any filing before FERC, SCE notes that FERC is the final arbiter in disputes.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

As remarked in the answer to the second question, SCE supports the Step 1 implementation but only upon the execution of implementation agreements sufficient to meet the requirements of both aspects of the trigger prior to any changes in governance.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

SCE supports the efforts to develop a Regional Organization in order best benefit customers, the environment, and provide reliable and affordable power throughout the West.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Seattle City Light (City Light) has been actively engaged in the West-wide Governance Pathways Initiative (Pathways Initiative) and strongly supports the Step 1 recommendation. City Light is supportinve of implementing the proposed changes in Step 1 consisting of:
• Elevating the WEIM Governing Body (GB) decision-making from Joint Authority to Primary Authority
• Modifying the current dispute resolution process to include a dual filing right
• Incorporating public interest safeguards for participating states in the WEIM GB
Further, City Light is fully supportive of  the step-wise approach that makes these Step 1 changes while Step 2 work is still under development. City Light supports the trigger definition of 70% of the 2022 CAISO BAA annual load, and appreciates that these steps can be taken as soon as the trigger is met and without legislative change.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

City Light supports the conversion from “Joint” to “Primary” authority for the WEIM Governing Body (WEIM GB). Additionally, we support using the existing “apply to” test used to identify the scope of areas of the tariff that fall under the the Primary Authority of the WEIM GB that is currently used to identify areas of Joint Authority. City Light considers this conversion to be a meaningful, incremental step that leverages the existing governance framework to create the foundation for the future changes that are under development through Step 2 that would further support independent governance. Granting primary authority to the WEIM GB is reasonable to better represent future EDAM entities in a regionalized market. The proposed structure offers a balanced approach that grants primary authority to the WEIM GB while also providing a backstop for the CAISO Board of Governors (BoG) that, if determined to be necessary, will allow for additional consideration of issues and dispute resolution procedures.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

City Light is comfortable with and supportive of allowing the WEIM GB and the CAISO BoG to make dual filings at FERC if an issue cannot be resolved through the dispute resolution process. This approach balances the interests of stakeholders in that it allows the potential for the WEIM GB and the CAISO BoG to have equal footing at FERC in any potential instance where an issue remains unresolved.  

We appreciate that the Primary Authority model proposed here bears a close resemblance to the consent agenda model that preceded the current Joint Authority model developed by the Governance Review Committee. Importantly, the approach proposed here differs in two key areas in that it retains the expanded decisional scope that was adopted as a part of the Joint Authority model in 2021 and places the WEIM GB proposals on equal footing with CAISO BoG proposals at FERC. Building on the success of this framework is prudent and efficient, and City Light appreciates that these changes also incorporate updates to better reflect the changing circumstances of the evolving markets.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

City Light supports the final proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards into the WEIM GB charter Additionally, City Light supports the proposal to maintain a continued, active role for state regulators and public power liaisons via the Body of State Regulators (BOSR). The BOSR has been an important and valuable voice in the policy development process for the WEIM. It is important to City Light that the BOSR retain an active advisory role in any new governance structure to help ensure that the public interest from all participating states is fully represented and woven into the fabric of future policy development.

Further, City Light supports continued engagement of the Regional Issues Forum (RIF) as a venue to collect stakeholder input and provide written options on issues impacting energy markets and/or under consideration in the stakeholder initiative process. We recognize that the Step 1 proposal does not propose any changes to the RIF, and that Step 2 will consider additional opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the policy development process. However, City Light believes it may be important for the RIF to expand the sector representation to add an EDAM Entity Sector on a faster timeline, as entities are already signing EDAM implementation agreements. While currently only investor-owned utilities have signed implementation agreements, it is likely that consumer-owned utilities will also soon commit to EDAM. Thus, the EDAM Entities sector should have a representative on behalf of both IOUs and COUs, similar to the structure utilized for EIM Entities.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

City Light supports the use of the proposed trigger for Step 1 implementation. The trigger provides a useful tool to facilitate the Step 1 changes while the Step 2 work requiring legislative changes is still under development. As indicated in the Step 1 straw proposal, this will promote expansion of the geographic footprint of EDAM in the near term, which will accelerate the benefits of greater regional coordination to consumers.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

As a participant in the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) since 2020, City Light has derived meaningful benefits since joining the market. As the market evolves and expands beyond the WEIM, the current governance structure must also evolve to provide equitable representation and greater independence. The Pathways Initiative is creating a platform that will allow the West to build upon the collaborative and positive outcomes achieved through the development and operation of the WEIM over the past decade. The Step 1 Recommendation represents meaningful progress in this effort, and City Light supports its implementation. 

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support. 

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Shell Energy supports the mission of the West Wide Governance Pathways Initiative as well as the Step 1 recommendation.  Step 1 is an actionable step within the confines of law and the CAISO structure, which enables a glidepath to an independently governed organization—one critical leg of the stool to ensure lasting regionalization within the non-Markets+ portion of the Western Interconnection. 

Shell Energy’s view is Step 1 alone is a down payment on future Pathways action in Steps 2 and Step 3; only completion of Step 1 would not achieve the level of independence required for a durable regional energy market made up with diverse interests and varied public policy goals. 

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

Shell Energy enthusiastically supports the WEIM Governing Body (which should be renamed upon launch of EDAM) possessing primary authority over tariff areas subject to joint authority.  As the Governing Body transitions to primary authority, it is prudent for both the Board of Governors and the Governing Body to remain engaged with both regional and CAISO-specific market developments and the relevant stakeholder processes.

Additionally, steps should be taken at RIF or elsewhere to better distill each stakeholder’s key viewpoints, support, or concerns through the use of non-binding advisory votes which would arm the Governing Body with an improved sense of stakeholder support or opposition to key areas under development.  

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

Supportive, although it is worthwhile to discuss what "time critical" or "exigent circumstances" could be defined as, with examples, to better understand the probability of a dual filing being utilized, in the spirit of disarming possible conflicts before they arise.   

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

No comments.  

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Shell Energy does not oppose the trigger requirements; although in our ideal world, the WEIM Governing Body would already posses primary authority over WEIM issues.  

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Shell Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment, a huge thank you to each Pathways launch committee member for their dedication and time commitment.    

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

The Six Cities support the Step 1 Recommendation. 

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The Six Cities support the transition to a primary authority model, as outlined in the Step 1 Recommendation, and the use of the currently-applicable “applies to” test to define the scope of the WEIM Governing Body’s primary authority.  The Six Cities do not oppose modification of dispute resolution provisions in the WEIM Charter to reflect a dual filing option, provided that the rules pertaining to filings in time-critical, exigent circumstances are retained, as discussed in the Step 1 Recommendation.  The Six Cities agree with enhancement of Charter language addressing the public interest and propose additional language for inclusion in the Charter to provide for a fair and equitable balancing of costs. 

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

The Six Cities concur in the recommendation to take an intermediary step toward more independent governance of Western markets by transitioning the WEIM Governing Body decisional authority over the WEIM and the EDAM from the joint to the primary authority model.  Consistent with the Six Cities’ comments to the Launch Committee, the Six Cities’ support for this transition is contingent upon preservation of the currently applicable “applies to” test in defining the scope of the WEIM Governing Body’s primary authority, which the Step 1 Recommendation proposes to do.  The Six Cities reiterate that the CAISO Board of Governors over the rules for and operations of the CAISO controlled-grid and the CAISO’s role as the balancing authority for the loads and resources within its footprint.  (See Step 1 Recommendation at 7, explaining that the Charter provides for rules that apply only to the CAISO or the CAISO grid are under the sole authority of Board of Governors.) 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

As stated in their comments to the Launch Committee regarding the Straw Proposal, the Six Cities do not oppose the proposal for revisions to the WEIM Charter to incorporate a “dual filing” process whereby unresolved disputes as between the WEIM Governing Body and the Board of Governors are addressed through the submittal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) of alternative proposed tariff amendments, both pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824d.  It is prudent to ensure that the CAISO Board of Governors retains the ability to unilaterally submit filings to FERC that are necessary given time critical exigent circumstances to preserve reliability or market integrity (see Step 1 Recommendation at 9), where the Board unanimously determines that such a filing is necessary.  The Six Cities’ support for the dual filing concept is contingent on preservation of this element.  At the same time, the Six Cities would hope that under exigent circumstances, the WEIM Governing and CAISO Board of Governors would undertake a coordinated approach to the extent feasible and observe that the WEIM Governing Body, in the exercise of its authority, should have an interest in preserving reliability and market integrity across the entire footprint of the WEIM and EDAM. 

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

The Six Cities agree with the proposal to include additional public interest safeguards in the Charter.  As discussed in the Step 1 Recommendation at 11, the proposal to mandate the principle of respect to individual state “and local” policies is sound, and the Six Cities strongly endorse continued coordination with public power representatives. 

The Six Cities support the expansion of section 2.1 of the Charter to reflect consideration of consumer interests and, specifically, the interests of consumers with respect to reducing costs and helping to control costs.  In addition to the provisions proposed for inclusion in Appendix E, the Six Cities request that the principle of fair and reasonable cost allocation as among market participants and their customers be incorporated through the following addition, preferably after the fifth proposed bullet point:

• Provide for fair and equitable allocation of costs as among market participants and their customers, with respect to both decisions and recommendations pertaining to market design and decisions and recommendations relating to market participation and internal operations.

As the West moves toward enhanced independent governance, it will be critical that the allocation of costs associated with operation of the markets is balanced.  No region of the market should be required to bear a disproportionate share of the market’s costs.  In the event that it is infeasible to incorporate this language as part of the proposed modifications for Step 1, the Six Cities expect to re-propose this language as a part of the Step 2 process. 

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

The Six Cities do not oppose the proposed trigger for Step 1 implementation. 

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The Six Cities have no further comments at this time.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Tacoma Power appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative and has benefitted from WEIM membership since joining in 2022. We recognize the potential for increased benefits from EDAM participation and view the decision to join a day-ahead market as a long-term decision. Tacoma Power hopes not to utilize provisions to exit a market. In connection with that hope, we are not supportive of joining a day-ahead market unless it is built on a framework of fully independent governance.   

With that concern in mind, Tacoma Power values the work, commitment, and resources that stakeholders have devoted to the development of the Step 1 Recommendation. Implementation of the Step 1 Recommendation would represent a commitment by the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors to the goal of fully independent governance, but it would not accomplish that goal to an extent that could support Tacoma Power committing to EDAM. Independent governance sufficient to support a long-term commitment to a day-ahead market requires at a minimum a durable structure that ensures California retail load and other California policies and interests will not overshadow the interests of other market participants or their retail customers. Currently Tacoma Power is not requesting any modifications to the Step 1 Recommendation.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

Tacoma Power appreciates that the current Joint Authority structure resulted from significant stakeholder input in recent Governance Review Committee processes. Joint Authority has enabled the WEIM to operate in a way that has provided diverse benefits to participants. We support a path to increased independence of governance over both WEIM and EDAM and recognize that the proposed adjustment to Primary Authority would represent a commitment by both the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors to the goal of independent governance. A transparent commitment to that goal is meaningful.

Nevertheless, the proposal for Primary Authority would not accomplish the goal of independence that many stakeholders share. There is risk that Primary Authority could obstruct rather than facilitate an evolution of the collaborative relationship between the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors that has evolved under the Joint Authority model. Risks to the obstruction of that relationship are present most significantly in the proposal’s provisions related to the CAISO Board of Governors’ authority under a “time-critical exigent circumstance to preserve reliability or market integrity.”

Other stakeholders have observed that circumstances meeting that standard are likely to be meaningful and impactful. And Tacoma Power understands that the stakeholders who developed the Step 1 Recommendation are hopeful the standard will be utilized rarely. We also recognize that the standard is likely necessary without a change to California law and that attempts to define the standard more specifically could complicate implementation of the Step 1 Recommendation. But with this exception in place, the ability of the Step 1 Recommendation to realize increased governance independence depends on whether future appointees to the CAISO Board of Governors remain committed to that independence. A structure that does not depend so heavily on the philosophies of future appointees would provide more durable and dependable independence. And a durably independent governance structure requires changes to California state law.

In sum, Tacoma Power appreciates that implementation of the proposed Primary Authority would represent a commitment by the current members of the WEIM Governing Body and CAISO Board of Governors to the goal of independent governance for the WEIM and EDAM. But that expression of commitment is insufficient for Tacoma Power to consider joining a day-ahead market without more durable structural independence.  

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

Our comments about the proposed authority under a “time-critical exigent circumstance to preserve reliability or market integrity” also apply to the potential under the Step 1 Recommendation for a Dual Filing. Tacoma Power prefers that issues be resolved by stakeholders who are participating in the market rather than by FERC. That preference is even stronger when the materiality or controversy around a specific issue leads to a Dual Filing. Whether this provision would enhance rather than inhibit independent governance also depends on the level of commitment to independent governance maintained by individual members of the WEIM Governing Body and CAISO Board of Governors.

Tacoma Power appreciates that implementation of the Dual Filing provisions would be part of a set of changes that represent a commitment by the current members of the WEIM Governing Body and CAISO Board of Governors to the goal of independent governance for the WEIM and EDAM. But Tacoma Power cannot consider joining a day-ahead market that does not include more durable structural independence than is provided by the Dual Filing option.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

Tacoma Power appreciates that the current Step 1 Recommendation accepted the feedback from parties such as the Public Generating Pool to recognize that public interest safeguards should respect both state and local government authority to set procurement, environmental, reliability, and other public interest policies. We also support the continued ability of entities like the Body of State Regulators and the Regional Issues Forum to address the way that commitment to state and local government authority is respected and implemented. Like other aspects of the Step 1 Recommendation, the extent to which that commitment is honored depends on the good faith of individual members of the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors until the time that something more durable than the Step 1 Recommendation can be implemented.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Tacoma Power understands that the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation represents a compromise among stakeholders on the Launch Committee. However, we do not see any benefit to a delay. Like many other entities in the Western Interconnection, Tacoma Power has been funding and participating in the development of the Southwest Power Pool’s Markets+. A concrete move to increase the independence of governance for both WEIM and EDAM, especially the more durably independent governance that is contemplated by the statutory changes associated with Step 2, would be helpful. In context of that dynamic, Step 1 should be implemented as soon as possible.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Tacoma Power appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and recognizes that the implementation of the Step 1 Recommendation would represent a commitment by the WEIM Governing Body and CAISO Board of Governors to movement toward independent governance. However, the Step 1 Recommendation would not provide a durable enough independent governance structure to support a decision by Tacoma Power to join EDAM.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

 Neutral.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the CAISO’s West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative.   TEP prioritizes the following factors when evaluating the governance model of any market:

1. Independence & Transparency
2. Investor-Owned Utility Participation
3. Local Resource Decision-Making
4. Utility Input on Grid Operations.

TEP believes that the West-Wide Governance Pathways Step 1 was not inclusive of all participants.  The meetings were not public and although decisions were shared, there was a lack of transparency on why certain decisions were made.  TEP is hopeful that future efforts will allow for regional discussions that are open to all stakeholders.

Additionally, TEP requests CAISO clarify and define the concept of “exigent circumstances” and define guidelines on implementing this as a last resort.

TEP also requests that CAISO review & identify the Tarriff to determine what sections of the Tarriff the “applies to” would fall under primary authority.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

TEP supports the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-making to “Primary Authority” as a step to increase the independence of Western Market Governance.   However, TEP remains concerned that while CAISO continues to remain a Market Operator and Market Participant, CAISO’s dual role remains a conflict of interest.   Under exigent circumstances, which has yet to be fully defined, CAISO still maintains control to bypass WEIM’s GB.  This in itself leaves some ambiguity of when this will be triggered.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

The communication structure between the WEIM Governing Body and the CAISO Board of Governors will be paramount to resolving issues.   The Dual Filing proposal although conceptually fair in nature could be burdensome, requiring FERC to settle differences which may create winner’s and losers in this scenario.     

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

n/a

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

TEP is not supportive of the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation.   An Independent governance structure that is equitable and transparent should be the cornerstone and not contingent of footprint expansion or reduction.   The proposed trigger leaves uncertainty to market participants on how the governance structure will occur under EDAM & EIM.  TEP suggests working towards an equitable market construct for both EIM and EDAM participants.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

n/a

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Vistra supports Step 1. Vistra submitted comments under the Governance Review Committee (GRC) Phase 3 effort that urged the GRC to include jump ball authority for the Western Energy Imbalance Governing Body to create a pathway for Extended Day-Ahead Market to be successful.[1] Step 1 is the low-hanging fruit that can be done and should be done today to minimally address governance challenges. In the Final Proposal for Step 1, the Launch Committee in coordination with CAISO should propose which CAISO Tariff sections will fall under primary authority of the Western Energy Imbalance Market Governing Body. This initial assessment can be leveraged in the Step 2 work.

[1] Vistra comments on the GRC Phase 3 final proposal, November 21, 2022, https://stakeholdercenter.caiso.com/Comments/AllComments/da41bf56-cc7d-40e4-9e63-de91cb83dd21#org-a7187290-40bf-44da-bcfd-3778c0987e4b.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

Supports

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

Supports

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

Supports

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Vistra felt jump ball authority for WEIM was a necessary condition for EDAM to be successful as communicated in our GRC phase 3 comments. While we do not oppose the trigger, we encourage the CAISO to take the necessary steps to make governance improvements that it has the authority to do so even without a trigger. Proactive action by the CAISO should build confidence in its commitments under an extended footprint.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Vistra submitted comments on West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative Straw Proposal, available at: https://www.westernenergyboard.org/wp-content/uploads/26.-Vistra-West-Wide-Governance-Pathway-Initiative-Phase-1-Straw-Proposal-Comments.pdf.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

neutral

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

WAPA’s geographically diverse footprint emphasizes our need to continuously engage and ensure key market development items – such as governance and market seams – recognize WAPA’s and our customers’ interests, perspectives, and voices.  As such WAPA is committed to continuing to support our mission and the needs of our customers in their market decision-making processes through continued engagement and support, where appropriate as a federal entity, to the work being done in the Pathways initiative.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

no comment at this time

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

no comment at this time

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

no comment at this time

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

no comment at this time

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

no comment at this time

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support.

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

The Western Consumer Advocates is an informal association of the utility consumer advocate offices from the states in the Western Interconnection. These offices are designated by the laws of their respective jurisdiction to represent the interest of utility consumers before state and federal regulators and in the courts. These comments are specifically supported by the Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection; the Colorado Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, the Utah Office of Consumer Services, and the Wyoming Office of Consumer Advocates (referred herein as Consumer Advocates.)

The Consumer Advocates offer the following comments on the Step 1 Recommendations. The Consumer Advocates support the Step 1 Recommendation and specifically note the focus on public interest of the Pathways Initiative, which is consistent with the way we as consumer advocates evaluate proposals for regionalization.

Additionally, each individual office of the Consumer Advocates may support the Step 1 Recommendation for some or all of the following reasons:

• The recommendation is a good faith showing of governance evolution toward increased independence that can be accomplished relatively quickly.
• The governance changes included in this recommendation appear to be sufficient incentive for additional Western utilities to seriously explore or commit to the EDAM.
• Having a larger footprint for the EDAM lowers the risk of erosion of benefits to electric consumers currently associated with EIM participation.

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

N/A.

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

N/A.

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

N/A.

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

N/A.

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

N/A.

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Support

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

Western Freedom is supportive of the Step 1 Reccomendation. 

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

Western Freedom is supportive of elevating decision making. We believe that this will enhance independence, foster regional market collaboration, and promote participation in EDAM. 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

NA

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

NA

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

Western Freedom is supportive of the proposed Trigger as it has already proved sucessful with NVE's commitment to EDAM. 

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

See attached. 

1. Please provide a one word reply to indicate whether your organization supports, opposes, or holds a neutral position with respect to the Step 1 Recommendation:

Supports. 

2. Please provide a summary of your organization’s comments on the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

WPTF supports the Step 1 Recommendation and believes it can be moved foward for approvals without modifications. We look forward to the development of Step 2 in the hopes of moving toward an “RTO capable” entity. 

WPTF appreciates the work of the Launch Committee and is supportive of the goal to create an independent governance structure that will allow for the formation of a regional market platform that contains the largest number of participants as possible in the West. WPTF recognizes the necessity of taking a “stepwise” approach to initially make changes under existing law to demonstrate meaningful progress and then create a second step that will allow for a fully independent governance and organization for a broad western power market similar to a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO).

3. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to elevate the WEIM GB Decision-marking from “Joint Authority” to “Primary Authority”:

WPTF believes this represents a very good initial approach to creating a structure that provides utilities and market participants from all over the West assurance that market rules that will govern their activities will be developed and implemented in an independent manner, while respecting current state laws and federal precedents. The primary authority model governing market rules for the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) Governing Body and proposed consent approach with CAISO Board of Governors gives a structure that appears workable. 

4. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to modify the current dispute resolution process to include a “Dual Filing”:

WPTF supports the proposal. 

5. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposal to incorporate public interest safeguards for participating states in WEIM GB:

WPTF supports the proposal. 

6. Please provide your organization’s comments, if any, on the proposed Trigger for Step 1 Implementation:

WPTF supports the proposal. 

7. Please provide any additional comments pertaining to the Step 1 Recommendation of the West-Wide Governance Pathways Initiative:

WPTF does not have any additional comments.