Scott's Latest Blog
Avoiding the Trap of “Tribalism”
“Humor is the universal solvent against the abrasive elements of life.” – Sen. Alan Simpson
Colleagues familiar with both Western and Eastern electricity markets have marveled over the last couple of years at the relatively cordial tone of our Western market integration discussions. All markets – and even areas without them – are struggling with increased load projections, interconnection queues, and transmission expansion needs. However, the centralized capacity markets have added a level of acrimony. The heretofore successful market of PJM has descended into regulatory filings filled with snark and increasing litigation.
Meanwhile, I have been bragging about our regional efforts to deal with Resource Adequacy (RA), our bilateral approach to RA, and our organic regional effort to gradually integrate the electric market into a more rational network dispatch. Members of WPTF with assets and transactions in the Eastern markets have noted the relative comity and spirit of common purpose that has characterized Western regional discussions. True, we had two competing Day-Ahead Market offerings which led to some competitive commentary. But the recognition of the need to better utilize the existing transmission system and move resources more efficiently seemed to keep the competition to a respectful banter. Until recently.
That’s when the fight started…
Two events seemed to have turned the discussion from a Middle School popularity contest to something that is beginning to feel accusatory and tribal. In my mind, these two events are the filing of the first implementation tariff of a Day-Ahead market and the fight over the Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) Day-Ahead Market selection.
It was perhaps inevitable that the first implementation tariff of any Day Ahead Market – with the complexity of having multiple Balancing Areas (BAs) adjusting their own transmission tariffs to conform to another overall Day-Ahead tariff – would reveal unanticipated problems. But the vitriol that was voiced by defenders of one market versus another began to resemble the characteristics of the national political debate of the last decade. Some accused reasonable concerns as a desire to “blow up the market.” Some sought to cast the issues identified as problematic in the first tariff filing as a fatal flaw in order to put the competing market offering in a better light.
The tension level appeared to rise again last month when BPA announced its “draft” Day-Ahead market decision. The motives of BPA were scrutinized and called into question. Those who side with BPA’s market decision made strenuous and questionable characterizations of the other market structure. The accusations on both sides are too many and require too much “inside Baseball” knowledge to usefully recount here. Suffice it to say the nature of Western market discourse began to take on a “tribal” tone. The use of this term is meant to describe an environment where “the other side” is all wrong, but “your side” is much better and must win. In this milieu, there is little room for nuance or recognition of compromise. In the tribal environment – like the one of our current politics – one must “own” the other side.
The choice of another way…
I come from a political family. I served as a political appointee in a Presidential Administration. So did my older brother. My father was a state Senator. My Godfather was a U.S. Senator. I know there are two ways to deal with disagreement:
- One can seek to characterize those on the other side in the worst possible light, with the worst possible motives. One can seek to flood the environment of discussion with inferences that are based on questionable interpretations of facts or actions. In this environment, compromise is rarely sought. Admitting mistakes and seeking to remedy them is a sign of weakness. Taken to extreme, it can ruin relationships and begin to inflict damage on unrelated institutions.
- The second is the one I recall and can be summed up by cordial, yet competitive relationships. In these situations, disagreements were recognized and debated. But compromises to affect a mutually recognized progress could often be achieved. Containing disagreements so that they don’t affect unrelated efforts or institutions is seen as important.
I’ll close with an illustration of the second way of discourse from a favorite political story. Gerald Ford had just become President because of the shocking circumstances of Watergate. Previously, he had long been a Republican leader in the House of Representatives. Shortly after becoming President, he was playing golf with Tip O’Neil, Democratic leader in the House. As they finished on the 18th hole, Tip said to Ford; “You know Jerry, uh, I mean, Mr. President, this is a great country.” Sensing a tease, Ford smiled and said, “I agree with you Tip. But what makes you say that now?” Tip replied, “Because here we are, having a great time and in about 45 minutes, I’ll be speaking in the well of the House and beating your brains out.” Ford smiled again and said, “You’re right Tip. This is a great country.”
My fellow Western colleagues let’s keep it cordial, not tribal. We need to keep moving on market integration, but we must do so in a way that doesn’t hurt relationships or institutions that we’ll need for future progress.