SRP recognizes the BPM acknowledges stakeholder engagement; however, it appears to lack explicit details regarding the methods of engagement and the process for considering stakeholder feedback beyond the PRC review. Participants may express valid concerns about their ability to meaningfully contribute to proposed changes. Furthermore, the document does not appear to provide insights into the assessment of potential impacts resulting from proposed changes, such as their implications for reliability, costs, or regulatory compliance. Participants would benefit from a comprehensive impact assessment process to gain a clearer understanding of the ramifications of proposed alterations.

APS is interested in why there is not a review of the PRC’s workplan done by the RAPC? It appears to be a missing stop in the path to ultimate approval by the Board.   If this is covered in BPM 302 it would be good to point that out as is done with the mention of the Board approving the proposals.

Regarding 4.2.2 Comments Intake we wanted to confirm the deadline by which the revised draft is distributed to the Board of Directors and posted publicly. Is the deadline for doing so May 15th? Please confirm.