View
212
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
3 Summary of Discussion Improvements to the TAC Procedures: Concerns over the appeals and need for affirmative action (i.e., NPRR 444 & 508) –Board Policies & Procedures Section 8.1 states that any entity that can demonstrate that it is affected by a TAC action may appeal that TAC action to the Board. –The ERCOT Bylaws define an act of TAC as affirmative votes of 67% of TAC. –Should TAC recommend that the Board Policies & Procedures be revised to allow items that are not an “act” of TAC to be appealed? (i.e., If a 67% affirmative vote cannot be reached, can a party appeal the inaction to the Board?) Defining a process for appeals to TAC –Protocol Section , Appeal of Action and the respective Market Guide Sections clearly define what Revision Request items can be appealed: Parties may appeal a subcommittee action to reject, defer or refer a Revision Request, directly to TAC –Should we establish timelines for appealing other subcommittee actions in the TAC Procedures?
Citation preview
Kenan Ögelman & Randa Stephenson
TAC Leadership Retreat
TAC MeetingSeptember 5, 2013
2
Summary of Discussion
Review of Subcommittee, Working Groups and Tasks Forces:•No suggested changes to structure of current groups•Concerns about working groups and task forces submitting comments without a voting structure’s review
– Subcommittees have different process for approving or supporting comments filed by their working groups and task forces
• Should we have a consistent methodology? • Timing concerns and need for email votes• Possible change to TAC Procedure or Subcommittee Procedures to define what
working groups/task forces can/cannot do•Discussed the need for more workshops for cross-over issues that impact numerous subcommittees
– Example: AS methodology, Constraint Management Plan Revision Requests•Favorable comments on recent changes to the PRS project update and Project Priority List (PPL)•Other topics
– More participation and leadership needed at working group and task force level– Early posting of agendas, Web Ex improvements, determining possible voting
items, etc.
3
Summary of DiscussionImprovements to the TAC Procedures:•Concerns over the appeals and need for affirmative action (i.e., NPRR 444 & 508)
– Board Policies & Procedures Section 8.1 states that any entity that can demonstrate that it is affected by a TAC action may appeal that TAC action to the Board.
– The ERCOT Bylaws define an act of TAC as affirmative votes of 67% of TAC.– Should TAC recommend that the Board Policies & Procedures be revised to
allow items that are not an “act” of TAC to be appealed? (i.e., If a 67% affirmative vote cannot be reached, can a party appeal the inaction to the Board?)
•Defining a process for appeals to TAC– Protocol Section 21.4.11, Appeal of Action and the respective Market Guide
Sections clearly define what Revision Request items can be appealed: • Parties may appeal a subcommittee action to reject, defer or refer a Revision
Request, directly to TAC– Should we establish timelines for appealing other subcommittee actions in the
TAC Procedures?
Recommended