The second bullet point contradicts outcome 3 from Section 4. Section 4 says the Amendment sponsor decides next steps when rejected by RAPC, but Section 5 says many other folks can pick up the Amendment and take it to the Board and not just the Amendment sponsor.

As stated in the BPM:

4.  RAPC Endorsement

                3)  The RAPC votes to reject the proposed Amendment – in which case the Amendment sponsor may decide to allow the proposal to terminate, may provide changes to the Amendment to be reconsidered by the RAPC, or may request consideration by the Board.

Then later stated in the BPM:

5.  Board of Directors Review

• Have been rejected or not acted upon by the RAPC but have been requested for review by a Participant, the Program Operator, or the Program Administrator, a Board member, or the Board itself.

Two questions: 

1)  Should the Board of Directors bulletpoint also include “requested consideration from an Amendment sponsor” or is this inferred by “requested for review by a participant”? 

2)  By including “having been rejected or not acted upon by the RAPC but have been requested for review by a Participant…” does this circumvent the need for review by the RAPC and the requirement of a 75% affirmative vote in both the House and Senate?

SRP appreciates the role of the Board of Directors in the final amendment review and understands that they have ultimate authority over the Tariff and amendments. SRP requests clarity on how the Board of Directors weighs RAPC endorsements and stakeholder comments in their decision-making process. This information may be helpful for transparency and ensuring all stakeholders are appropriately considered in final decisions and will help in understanding how appeals to the Board of Directors will be handled.

In addition, the BPM does not mention an appeal process for RAPC members who do not endorse amendments. SRP recommends the WPP consider outlining a clear process for such appeals to the Board of Directors. An appeal process may help ensure all participants have a fair opportunity to be heard at all levels of the decision-making process.

Section 5 states that “the Board will receive all Proposals...for review and consideration” including proposals that have been rejected or not acted upon by the RAPC, which seems to suggest that ALL Proposals, including those rejected by the RAPC, will be reviewed by the Board. However, later in section 5 it is stated that “Whether to consider a previously rejected Amendment is solely within the Board’s discretion.”

Currently, there are four actions the Board may take on a proposed Amendment. Powerex requests that the language be clarified regarding whether a previously rejected Proposal must be reviewed by the Board.  If the Board does have the discretion to not take any action or not review a proposal that should be listed as a new action #5.

Also, in the second enumerated action that the Board can take on a proposed amendment, it is described how “...WPP will make a Section 205 filing to amend the WRAPA and/or Schedule 1 in the Tariff”, if the RAPC takes no action within two weeks of the Board voting to approve a proposed Amendment with changes. Powerex suggests that the RAPC should be given 30 days to act on an Amendment approved with changes, to ensure the RAPC has sufficient time to review and discuss the changes prior to the FPA Section 205 filing.