EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Texas Staff File Updated Draft Proposal For Adoption In DG Interconnection Rulemaking

December 12, 2016

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-16 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Karen Abbott • kabbott (at) energychoicematters.com

Texas PUC Staff have filed an updated draft proposal for adoption concerning the distributed generation interconnection rulemaking, which addresses the ability for non-customer third parties to sign IAs

The draft proposal for adoption would allow the end-use customer either to be the non-utility party to the IA (identified as Option 1) or otherwise to elect one of the following entities to be the non-utility party to the IA on their behalf: the entity who owns the distributed generation (DG) facility but is not the end-use customer (DG owner or an Option 2 entity), the owner of the premises at which the DG facility is located (premises owner or an Option 3 entity), or the person who by contract is assigned ownership rights to energy produced by the DG facility (an Option 4 entity).

The draft preamble notes that, "End-use customers who obtain power from DG covered by PURA §39.916(k) may incorrectly expect that the commission has jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the end-use customer and the DGO. If, for example, a homeowner is dissatisfied with a DRGO’s conduct with respect to solar panels that the DRGO installed for the homeowner, the homeowner may incorrectly expect to be able to file a complaint with the commission. In order to help avoid such expectations, the commission has added language in the IA stating that the Customer and end-use customer acknowledge that agreements other than the IA that do not involve the Company may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the commission."

The IA under the proposal for adoption would require that that the, "Customer acknowledges agreements other than this Agreement relating to the Facilities between Customer and other entities that do not involve the Company may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission," and to affirm that, "the agreements that I have with ___________[insert name of Customer] relating to the distributed generation facility addressed in Facility Schedule No. __[insert applicable number] may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Texas."

The draft preamble notes that, "The purpose of the IA is to govern the relationship between the Customer – the end-use customer or one of three types of non-end-use customer entities – and the Company (utility). The IA does not govern the relationship between the end-use customer and an Option 2–4 entity that signs the IA. No commenter identified any statutory provision that would give the commission jurisdiction over a complaint by an Option 2–4 entity against an end-use customer. Conversely, allowing the IA to be executed between the utility and an entity other than an end-use customer does not preclude a private bilateral agreement that would be enforceable in the court system from governing the relationship between the signatory and an end-use customer and providing remedies."

The draft proposal for adoption would decline to require that the Option 2–4 entities shall be a REP or a power generation company (PGC), or some other entity regulated by the commission, in order to be a party to the IA

Project 45078

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-16 Energy Choice Matters. If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

Archive

Daily Email

Events

About/Contact

Search