NRDC – Carl Zichella

Thanks for allowing for a fuller conversation on this topic. As you requested on the call, here are some additional thoughts on committee makeup from Class 4 member NRDC:

  1. NRDC believes qualified people were selected to populate the TF and supports their being seated. Expanding the committee to include the other classes of WECC members treats these TF members, and potential TF members from the other classes fairly. We do not believe these additions would make the TF too unwieldy.
  2. NRDC does not believe the process itself was unfair, but it did fail to recognize the need to select TF members from the full range of WECC member classes. We do not think it was intended to exclude the other classes, but that was the effect we wish to see corrected.
  3. Though some members of the excluded classes did apply, none were selected. This left an unfortunate gap in participation from the extended WECC family, whose support is important to the success of establishing the ADS.
  4. NRDC strongly believes that including these classes of members would not inhibit the TF’s work, but should rather enhance it by providing needed perspectives now absent to the TF, and improve the likelihood of subsequent buy-in for the results of the analyses done with the ADS.
  5. The ADS is the cornerstone of all further WECC transmission analyses. NRDC has been an early and strong supporter of the process of establishing it. Its importance to WECC analysis and the goal of harmonizing assumptions with the regional planning groups cannot be overemphasized. Having the concurrence of all membership groups affected by the TF’s work should provide needed confidence that the ADS is effective in addressing the perspectives of all the member classes.
  6. NRDC, like numerous other WECC class 4 and 5 members, participates in the regional planning groups’ planning processes as effective and valued stakeholders. We believe that though our WECC membership classes may not have the same precise level of professional qualification of Classes one and two, our perspectives are important to the success of the TF and we believe we can make a constructive contribution to its work. The qualifications we bring as representatives of our classes is also important and valuable to WEECC as evidenced by the care taken to include them in other WECC committees, subcommittees, TFs. Etc.

Finally, NRDC strongly concurs with the following statement from SDG&E’s Jan Strack, who wrote in a related memo:

“To me, the central issue before us is not whether the process was properly followed, the selection process was fair, or the number of voting ADSTF members are insufficient to complete the assigned duties. The central issue is whether WECC is willing to accommodate the articulated needs of two important WECC classes; specifically, that Classes 4 and/or 5 have the ability to vote on any ADSTF matters that cannot be resolved through consensus. To the extent practical and feasible, I believe it is in WECC’s interest to accommodate its membership. Such accommodation signals inclusiveness, and encourages continued active participation by all groups. Not providing such accommodation suggests we value the sanctity of process over the concerns of our members.
As indicated by our earlier comments, SDG&E believes that the ADSTF loses nothing by adding two voting members from Classes 4 and/or 5, and, in fact, will benefit from the connection these classes have to data sources and processes that are critical to the success of the Anchor Data Set (ADS).”

Thanks for considering these comments. We look forward to the next conversation on expanding the membership of the ADSTF.