Hosted by Vedeni Energy, LLC · EN
Vedeni Energy's Deep Dive provides a weekly, in-depth analysis of the most relevant and timely issues within the U.S. electric power industry.

If you manage a plant, field team, service operation, branch, hospital unit, warehouse, or support function that depends on experienced people, you already know the problem. The opening is approved. The budget is in place. The work is ready. The applicants are not. Or they arrive without the needed skills, leave after three months, or are poached as soon as they become useful.
North American wholesale electricity markets remained operationally stable during the week ending May 8, but institutional and infrastructure pressures continued to intensify across nearly every major organized market. Spring shoulder-season conditions generally moderated real-time pricing, with most markets avoiding sustained scarcity despite localized volatility tied to transmission congestion, renewable intermittency, and weather-driven load swings. In the western markets, CAISO and the WEIM footprint continued to emphasize operational readiness, transmission planning, and EDAM implementation. SPP and Markets+ likewise focused on governance and market development as Western integration efforts increasingly evolved into competition among alternative regional market structures.

If you spend your days running utility operations, planning outages, dealing with regulators, or trying to keep projects moving through a company already juggling too many priorities, this week offered a fresh reminder that market design is not some distant policy subject. It becomes a management subject the moment a new market goes live and begins to change how power is scheduled, how transmission is used, how risks are shared, and how accountability is spread across state lines. That is why the launch of the Extended Day-Ahead Market, or EDAM, stood out this week as the most important leadership and management topic in the U.S. electric power industry.

Succession planning is treated like a board exercise until someone leaves at the wrong time. Then leaders discover how much was riding on one person, how thin the internal bench truly was, and how little confidence anyone has in the handoff. By that point, the company is not building a pipeline. It is managing a problem. That is the wrong way to handle leadership continuity. A sound succession process is not only about replacing the chief executive. It is about ensuring the business can keep moving when a division head retires, a founder steps back, a plant leader is recruited away, or a top operator burns out and decides he has had enough. In plain terms, it is about whether the company has enough ready people to run the place without drama.
North American wholesale power markets spent the week in a broadly orderly spring operating posture, with few signs of acute reliability stress across the major organized markets reviewed. In the West, CAISO and the WEIM footprint continued to operate under relatively mild shoulder-season conditions, and the more important developments were institutional rather than operational: EDAM readiness work, market-simulation activity, queue publication, and transmission governance remained the focus. SPP’s newly expanded western footprint continued to settle into routine committee and stakeholder cadence, while Markets+ remained centered on governance, design, and implementation work rather than live market outcomes. In Alberta and Ontario, short-run market conditions were similarly calm, but both AESO and IESO used the week to advance tariff, planning, procurement, and transmission frameworks designed to accelerate demand growth.

For years, wildfire planning sat in a few boxes. Safety handled emergency response. Vegetation teams cleared rights-of-way. Regulatory staff handled filings. Finance dealt with recovery after the damage was done. That division no longer fits the facts. In the U.S. electric power industry, wildfire exposure now reaches capital planning, liability, insurance, credit, rate design, field operations, communications, and how boards judge management. It is no longer enough to treat wildfire as a seasonal hazard that can be managed with a few operating procedures and a public update when the weather turns bad.

Many change efforts do not fail in a dramatic way. They wear people out. A company launches a new reporting structure, then adjusts office expectations, then changes performance language, then installs a new tool, then resets priorities after a rough quarter. None of those moves is shocking on its own. Taken together, they can leave people feeling as though the ground never quite holds still. Work still gets done, but with more drag. Managers repeat themselves. Teams keep asking what matters now. Good employees begin to conserve energy instead of giving it freely. That is change fatigue.
Across North American wholesale power markets, the dominant near-term theme this week was operational normalcy, alongside increasingly consequential medium-term planning and policy work. Western conditions remained comparatively soft, with CAISO and the broader WEIM footprint continuing to publish routine daily market and renewable reports while focusing stakeholder attention on EDAM launch readiness, onboarding, summer preparedness, and transmission and intertie processes. SPP’s western expansion continued to shift the regional conversation toward seam coordination and governance follow-through, while Markets+ remained centered on market design and stakeholder committee activity rather than near-term operating events. In Alberta and Ontario, the immediate market signal was similarly calm, but both AESO and IESO advanced tariff, transmission, and procurement frameworks intended to accommodate future load growth and system change.

The U.S. power business knows how to talk about the need for more transmission. That part is not hard. Demand is rising, generation is shifting, data center developers want service quickly, and reserve margins are tightening in more than one region. The harder part is deciding how to plan the next wave of grid projects, how to pay for them, and who should be allowed to build them. That is where the real leadership test lies right now.

For years, companies have treated flatter structures as a sign of progress. Fewer layers. Faster decisions. Less bureaucracy. Lower costs. On paper, that sounds sensible. In the real world, it often creates a quieter problem. Work gets pushed onto fewer managers, the number of direct reports climbs, and the people who are supposed to coach, correct, and coordinate the system lose the time to do it well. That is no longer a theory. Gallup’s recent work on span of control found that the average number of people reporting to managers rose from 10.9 in 2024 to 12.1 in 2025, nearly 50% above the level Gallup measured in 2013. At the same time, Gallup’s 2026 workplace data showed manager engagement dropping sharply, and its separate leadership research found that leaders often report stronger overall life evaluations while also experiencing greater day-to-day emotional strain. That combination should get the attention of any executive team. It means the manager layer can still look functional from a distance while getting weaker at the exact work only managers can do.