PJM shared with its members a letter from Andy Ott, PJM senior vice president – markets, to Richard Doying, MISO vice president – operations, regarding a proposed stakeholder process for MISO and PJM on coordination issues.
I am writing to you to jump-start discussions on a public stakeholder process to explore various market coordination issues between PJM Interconnection and MISO. The Joint Operating Agreement between our two organizations has served as a successful model of coordination to address seams issues.
I am convinced that the dedication of PJM and MISO Staff to that process has worked to ensure the overall success of the JOA.
As you know, I have worked to reach out to you on a number of occasions to arrange a time to meet to discuss a process for embracing a variety of coordination issues. Delays in that meeting occurring as well as the recent public statements and filings that have been made by MISO officials have caused us to resort to a formal writing to outline our thoughts for a focused, coordinated stakeholder process to identify, prioritize and work on key coordination and seams issues between our two RTOs.
I am enclosing our proposal which, as you will see, is designed to identify, prioritize and resolve a number of cross-border coordination issues. Although MISO public statements have focused on MISO’s proposal for capacity portability, we believe there are additional issues which require prioritization, discussion and review, such as outage coordination, congestion management and transmission planning as we find actions on the MISO side of the border on those issues potentially having an adverse impact on the PJM region. Nevertheless, our goal will be to kick off a series of focused joint stakeholder meetings, including mutual reach-out to OPSI and OMS, to identify the full range of coordination issues on both sides of the border that are material, add value and are worthy of further exploration and resolution.
As I have expressed to you before, we continue to be troubled by MISO’s continued public assertions that we believe are inaccurate, both at its stakeholder meetings and in various “talking point” documents provided to state commissions. The most significant concerns are the continued uncaveated reference to results of consultant studies that have been acknowledged as preliminary and inaccurate by the consultants and the assertion that PJM “refuses” to discuss these issues. A review of the contemporaneous communications between us belie these continued public assertions, none of which are helpful to the kind of coordination and dialogue that is important to thoughtful issue resolution. That being said, our goal is to move forward, reduce rhetoric and ensure an orderly, open and transparent process where all relevant issues can be identified, prioritized and addressed.
As I indicated the JOA model between our organizations has been a successful model of coordination. We believe that it is desirable to build upon those processes and, in that spirit, I am proposing the attached proposed process for moving forward with prompt and constructive issue identification and dialogue between our two organizations.
I look forward to our meeting on May 14, 2012 in Indianapolis to discuss these issues further.
Senior Vice President, Markets